Your whole party must be present...

[smartie]

before a restaurant will seat you.

How do you feel about this. I ask because I was just reading a restaurant review on another site and the reviewer complained that the restaurant wouldn't seat them until they were all there, even though they were told the policy when they called ahead to make a reservation they still made a stink and then reviewed the restaurant poorly because of this.

[QueenPeach]

charlesbois, I agree with you completely. "Nope, but the rules are the rules."...that's not a very good argument and I'd say it even sounds immature. There's no point in the 'whole party must be present' if the restaurant is half empty.

[rockandroller1]

Again people, we are talking about a chain. MODs are given very little wiggle room on making "judgment calls" or "evaluating the situation." In a chain if it's a rule, it's a rule. It doesn't matter if the party is full of disabled veterans in uniform, they stick to the policy. It's the only way to ensure uniformity of compliance, which is like the holy grail in chains.

I agree with the people who have said "vote with your feet" but I also think you should vote with your voice via pen and paper or at least email to the corporate office. They won't change anything if people don't complain.

And it's yet another example of why I hate eating in chains more and more.

[dolores]

OK, rockandroller1, understood. I agree with you, I no longer eat in chains.

[MakingSense]

That's an incorrect assumption. Not every restaurant that appears to be a "chain" takes its orders from afar. Some are locally-owned franchises and the owner may actually be on-site. Rules can vary from outlet to outlet depending on the clientele and particular needs.
Even with corporate policy, common sense dictates sensible deviations to accommodate disabilities, including the elderly, some of which is outlined by law, others by simple consideration and good manners.

[rockandroller1]

Thanks for clarifying, you do have a point. Unfortunately in the 15 years I worked in the restaurant industry, nearly all chains but not every one a chain, I've not seen too many managers willing to put forth the effort into this type of customization. It's easier to stick to the rules, stay in the back and expedite than manage the hostess station with thought and compassion. The ones I've seen who were good managers who tried to think outside of the box were pushed out.

[miss_bennet]

I think that the quintessential difference with this example is that the party was informed of the policy when they made the reservation. In that case, the restaurant absolutely has the right to refuse to seat you until your entire party arrives. Basically, that reviewer was a whiny person who doesn't believe that he/she has to follow the rules.
However, on the whole, if the restaurant was not full, and they refused to seat the part of my party that had arrived, I would speak with my feet, and leave. And never return. Policies are policies, but bad service is bad service.

[Pollo]

It's a stupid "rule/policy"...what ever happened to hospitality???....so they will not sit you at the table because you only have part of your group? I would make my feet do the talking....it's your $ you are spending and the last thing you want to have is beeing treated like a bunch of first graders on a school trip.....

[smartie]

Pollo, here's how I see it from a resto's POV - if say 4 of 6 are present and the restaurant seats them. They either order nothing but water and bread and then more bread and maybe an appetizer to share whilst waiting. The server is running for the table. Then eventually the other 2 arrive. The first 4 are now fairly full having eaten bread and shared an app or two, they then decide not to eat a full meal but share a couple of entrees.

Or scenario 2, the first 4 decide not to wait for their friends and order their whole meal. It arrives just as the other two arrive and these two decide not to order anything and share the other 4 meals, or they want to order immediately to 'catch up' and the server is again run ragged. Other tables in the server;s section are now compromised while the server has to go back and take a second order on a table he or she has already serviced.

I have seen the above happen in all variations.

Other than that, I have also seen the other 2 not show at all, now the 6 top is taken up with 4 and could have gone to a 6 waiting for a large table. That party of 6 could be you.

I do think that as miss bennet observed, they agreed to the terms and conditions when they made the reservation and really should have told all their party to be on time.

[Pollo]

I understand your point but I still think it all boils down to hospitality....you will get more business in a long run with kindness than strict rules....

[DanaB]

Or, you could have a scenario such as the one that occurred -- where the restaurant lost out on the appetizer and drink orders that the waiting people would have ordered in addition to their entrees if they'd been permitted to sit down at a table.

[Pearl820]

Was there a bar area? why didnt they sit in the bar and wait on their party? Couldve had drinks and apps aplenty there.

[DanaB]

Apparantly it wasn't an option that was offered to the waiting people. See charlesbois' post above.

[miss_bennet]

Well, however stupid, policies are policies. Basically, it's disrespectful to the restaurant to be late for a reservation. As the reviewer was informed of this policy when he/she made the reservation, he/she should have immediately communicated his distaste for it. As he/she did not choose to dine elsewhere, but was aware of the policy, he/she should be able to display the understanding of an adult, and not whine like the first grader he/she was rightfully being treated as.

However, as I typically only make reservations for birthdays, I would eat in the restaurant out of respect for my friend, but never go back. I agree that the policy itself is anti-service.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice to walk in and get a table for eight because some whiny first-grader was late?

[alkapal]

i can see enforcing a policy, but also get smart and be flexible when the resto is 1/2 empty on sunday afternoon. "zero tolerance" policies are not very smart in schools, either....

[Miss Needle]

Although I can find it annoying, I totally understand why restaurants enforce that policy. I remember one situation where I was meeting about 10 people on a Saturday night at 8P. The restaurant wouldn't seat us until we were all there, which was a good thing because nobody got there on time. The majority of people didn't even show up until 8:45P - 9P.

However, with all rules, I believe in flexibility. I forgot how it exactly goes, but there's a Chinese saying that if a branch is too rigid, it will break. Like in charlesbois's situation where the restaurant was half-empty on a Sunday afternoon, the waitress could have sat down these people and have said, "Well, it's usually against our company policy. But seeing as there are so many empty tables, we'll make the exception and seat your party right now."

[im_nomad]

i guess another question here then is, in the case with your ten person gathering....did the restaurant seat another party at your table while you waited? If you have a reservation, your table is reserved...i guess i just don't see what the difference is between sitting and waiting at your table, as opposed to out in the hall.

[Miss Needle]

I'm pretty sure they seated another table as it was a pretty happening joint. When all ten people arrived, we had to wait an additional 20 minutes until they had a table ready for us.

There's a huge difference between sitting and waiting at our table and waiting out in the hall (or outside in our case). While we had a reservation, we weren't able to honor it on our end. Outside of a respectable waiting period (let's say 15 minutes), we in fact lose our reservation and become walk-ins. If we wait in the hall, our table can be given to those walk-ins (whose whole party is present).

[im_nomad]

dunno....sometimes it feels on here that the guests who are paying are the ones who are supposed to fall in line with what the individuals who are being paid to provide a service wants....sounds a bit "soup nazi"ish to me....like it's my job to please the restaurant and the servers, not the other way around.

In most chain type places like the roadhouse charlebois mentioned....also have a bar area...and should make an offer to seat guests there while waiting, and i see this happening all the time, and most places are more than happy to make sure your bill accompanies you etc. Sheesh, why turn down extra money in sales when the guests have flat out told you they plan to order drinks and app's...and aren't going to be occupying a table twiddling their thumbs for a half hour??

Restaurants should also have a comfortable and warm waiting area where you don't have to freeze to death every time the door opens from the street. I will be very happy and likely tip in accordance if you perhaps offer a nice comfortable and warm seat for my older parents....for example.

Also, if i open a door to a restaurant and lets say haven't made a reservation, and the hallway is clogged up with a bunch of people waiting for someone to arrive, i'll assume there's no room, and keep on trucking.

I understand policies and that rules are there to keep people from clogging up a table for ten with two people....but i reflect back on a recent celebration at a higher end restaurant, which was meant to be a surprise (at least in regards to who the guests would be), and it was very much part of the moment that all of these people would have been seated when i escorted my parents in.

I just think there's a little bit of room for flexibility here, IMHO.

[invinotheresverde]

That situation is 100% different. The people in question simply didn't want to wait for their late guests.

(I hope your parents had a great time)

[charlesbois]

Misrepresentation of facts is a sure sign of a weak argument. We wanted to be seated so we could start ordering food and beverages, while waiting for our guests, when the restaurant was able to accommodate that situation. There is a world of difference between the situation you erroneously present and the one that actually occurred and was posted.

[invinotheresverde]

I disagree.

[PeterL]

My experience with this is with Chinese restaurants, esp. during busy dim sum hours. There are lots of people who'd send one or two ahead to secure a table, then the rest of the party trickle in. The result being that they hold the table for much longer than a party that's "all there". And of course the two or three who are there ahead of the main group don't order anything until everyone gets there.

I can fully understand the restaurants' reason for this policy, and fully support it.

[bnemes3343]

I am with the restaurant on this one. Suppose the rest of your party was 30 minutes late? Maybe an hour? Meantime you're taking up a table and (unless you are drinking like a fish) probably not spending a whole lot of money. You are costing them (and the server) money. That being said, I tend to see this as a stated policy mainly in places that are quite busy and have a pretty quick turn-around.

It seems to me that restaurants are a pretty low margin/cut-throat business, yet while we all want to trash the super-efficient chains that are threatening the existence of one-of-a-kind eateries, we are also pretty quick to condemn the latter when they implement some policies intended to help them survive.

[kewpie]

am in total agreement with bnemes3343,invinosverde and janet, and i think that some people will never understand this point of view, unfortunately. Late is late.

[DanaB]

Late is late, but an empty table with customers waiting equals no revenue whatsoever. The hypothetical we are dealing with here is a partially empty restaurant not seating people who wanted to order food and drink immediately, and not wait to order until the rest of the party arrived. It's simply bad business on the part of a restaurant to not serve them under the circumstances. Other situations might mandate other outcomes, but in this instance, the restaurant's policy was nonsensical.

[renov8r]

On some level this makes sense -- the hostess doesn't have to be bothered assembling all the parties and/or acting as a messenger for late arriver, waiter/waitress won't have an incomplete party twiddling their thumbs at a table. Of course if the establishment has a nice cocktail bar it can be an opportunity for the early arrives to have a drink w/o occupying a table. For places where a full house puts every table at a premium it is more fair to others... I would think that anyone who eats out frequently would see the value in this. There is a nice way for staff to make this known, and if the customer is also nice (and honest) in this age of cell phones it ought to be easy enough to say "we know another couple that was supposed to join us is running X minutes late". If that X minute is communicated ahead of time (and is reasonable) I've found few places that won't seat the partial group.

OTOH if the place is NOT "backed up" why not have folks get comfortable at a table? Making customers needlessly mill about will result in bad feelings (and/or a bad review). If patrons are not treated with respect/courtesy in ALL interactions then I feel it can be relevant -- after all the whole experience is fair game for reviewers.

Finally if the place "has been burned" and people often have a partial party the resturant loses by holding seats empty. I have a business associate who routinely does this to get a bigger more spacious table. It is despicable. I won't go out with him to a place that would be "in demand" as I've this behaviorunacceptable.

[dolores]

If for a party of sixteen, I can see the rationale.

If for a party of four, I think it is a mark of a restaurant I would ignore in the future.

[charlesbois]

I'm going to have to go against the restaurant on this one. I agree with the PP though regarding party of 16 versus party of 4.

This recently happened to me when I was dining with a party of 5 plus a baby. Three of us showed up, the couple with the baby was late. This was on a Sunday around 3:30. The restaurant was about half full. Instead of seating us where we could order multiple drinks and 3 or more appetizers, they let us sit out in their dingy waiting area where the TV was playing static. It was ridiculous. They missed out on a rather large bill and tip. Instead of all the extras, we all ordered one entree apiece and no drinks.

Granted this was at the chain Texas Roadhouse, where I'm not expecting top notch service. But to miss out on doubling the bill just because of this policy is ridiculous.

(btw, Texas Roadhouse is NOT recommended, although the ribs I had there were pretty good)

[invinotheresverde]

I don't understand how the restaurant's policy kept you from ordering drinks and appetizers. Are you blaming the restaurant for your guests' tardiness?

[charlesbois]

I don't think you quite understand. Instead of being sat at a table where we could order drinks and apps while waiting for the rest of our party, we had to sit in a dingy waiting area with hard benches and no tables, where we were not allowed to order anything. We even asked if we could sit at a table because we wanted to order drinks/apps, but it was a no go. By the time the rest of our party arrived, we were starving and angry and just wanted to get out of there, hence just ordering entrees. Now whereas the rest of the party was quite negligent in arriving 1/2 hour late, the restaurant could have capitalized on that negligence by allowing patrons who had expressed a desire for ordering multiple menu items (especially usually the most marked-up menu items) to do just that.

[dolores]

>>>Now whereas the rest of the party was quite negligent in arriving 1/2 hour late, the restaurant could have capitalized on that negligence by allowing patrons who had expressed a desire for ordering multiple menu items (especially usually the most marked-up menu items) to do just that.

You are correct, charlesbois. Unless they expected to squeeze you into a table for two if, according to their exalted timetable, the other members of the party didn't show, they created a situation that would cause you to regard them in an unfavorable light.

I am constantly amused by arrogant restaurants. I wonder if they think they are the only game in town?

[invinotheresverde]

D, the restaurant has policies for a reason, which they have to stand behind 100% of the time, in order to avoid the inevitable "they did it for me last time" on a busy Saturday night. Time and time again, I've seen guests at a table wait over an hour on a busy night for their last guest to arrive, ordering nothing, only for their guest never to show. That puts the restaurant behind and isn't fair to the other guests waiting.

That's not restaurant arrogance, it's practicality. In fact, I wish the restaurant I work at employed the same strategy.

Vote with your feet. If you don't like the rules, don't play their game.

[Janet from Richmond]

OTOH, I am constantly (and am in a service business, not restaurant) amused by the arrogance of customers who believe they are the only game in town, always rights and that we should whatever it takes to keep them (and of course at a discount or with a comp). I strive to be a good customer and it pays off.

[invinotheresverde]

A non-restaurant person who gets it. Janet, I think I love you.

[invinotheresverde]

No I fully understood. I was just curious why you were angry with the RESTAURANT and not your LATE guests.

[charlesbois]

I'm not sure now if you are willfully misunderstanding, or if there is some other problem. The late guests were rude and inconsiderate, but they did not enforce the restaurants ridiculous policy of not seating the majority of a party who voiced an interest in ordering multiple items, and therefore increase the restaurant's profits, that could not be had in the waiting area.

[invinotheresverde]

The restaurant's policy (no matter how ridiculous it seems to YOU) is their policy. Did you expect them to change the rules for you? The restaurant doesn't seat incomplete parties. Your party was incomplete. They sat you once you all arrived. I'm really not seeing the problem here.

[charlesbois]

The problem is there were plenty of empty tables and plenty of servers standing around with nothing to do. Of course, they HAD to stand around and talk in the waiting area...but that is neither here nor there.

I don't expect anyone to change rules to accommodate me. I expect a service-based industry to accommodate their guests as best as possible, which under the circumstances, would be to ignore their policy and seat customers when it was abundantly clear that they had the ability to do so.

[invinotheresverde]

But you WERE expecting them to change the rules for you. Just because it wasn't busy when you arrived doesn't mean they don't get busy. And if I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times, "They did it for me last time". If you had to wait an extra 45 minutes because the table you were scheduled to have sat and waited for their last guest before beginning, causing you to spend even more time in the waiting area with the broken tv, etc, would you be happy? Doubt it.

Again, if you don't like their policy, eat someplace else or dine with guests who are punctual. You can't SERIOUSLY be angry that the restaurant (and a chain, at that, so it's a corporate policy) was following their protocol?

[charlesbois]

I gather from your posts that you work at a restaurant. I too have worked in the industry, from front of the house to back. I know exactly what I would have done in this situation had I been hostess, server or manager. I would have sat a table that wanted to order drinks and apps. The possible absence of 2 other diners and a baby would not have made or broke that night.

[invinotheresverde]

Nope, but the rules are the rules.

[DanaB]

Rigid and inflexible, not to mention inane policies like this, are the reason why so many restaurants fail.

I too would be flippin' mad if a half-empty restaurant would not seat my party so we could order drinks and appetizers while waiting for the rest of the table to arrive. It's idiotic on the part of the restaurant.

[Servorg]

That's what I believe is termed "The tail wagging the dog" and it can only result in disaster for the tail.

[dolores]

Isn't it astonishing that there are restaurants that would BE this intractable, when there are SO many other restaurants that are not?

I find that very curious and am always happy to never again return to those that don't want my business, just as I am always happy to patronize and advertise by word of mouth those that are wonderful.

[Scrapironchef]

I'm with you on this, from the same experience and for the same reasons. However, I'm sure the hostess at a chain lke TR doesn't have the experience or the authority to override the corporate rules. THe strength of chain restos is their homogeneity, all the way down to behaviors like this, it lets them hire easily replaceable cogs.

[miss_bennet]

As someone who works in the restaurant business, I would think that you would know that more money is better than less money. Apparently this is a complicated concept. In this case, the hostess could simply have said that it is against their regular policy, but as it is outside of peak hours, they can make an exception.
And as for the "They did it for me last time!" pitch, if someone says that to me, I know that it becomes the backbone of my argument. I tell the guest that we've already broke the rules once for them; and we will not be able to do it again. I realize how frsutrating it is, because realistically, I'll give in and go against the rules to give the customer what they want.

As for breaking the policies... Basically, the customer may not always be right, but the customer is still the customer.

[invinotheresverde]

And then watch a customer freak out because you won't break the rules again? Thank you, no.

[Pearl820]

Completely agree invino. Not worth the hassle.

[miss_bennet]

If you refused to seat part of a party in your restaurant WHEN IT WAS HALF EMPTY, because your rules said otherwise, what would your manager say? And the owner?
And do you seriously think those customers would be back?

[invinotheresverde]

I personally don't see why the customer can't accept the rule or dine elsewhere.

Also, restaurants hate customers who are too good for their rules. They're in place for a reason. The customer doesn't come back because the restaurant wouldn't change their policy for them? "Don't let the door hitcha...".

[nc213]

Your answer about custome service echoes an earlier argument about hospitality. Yes, restaurants are in teh hospitality business and should do their best to accomodate the needs of their guests. It seems that in the OP's situation, the best thing to do from a customer service perspective would have been to seat the incomplete party.

however, when the restaurant is full or will be full, being hospitable to the incomplete party may result in poor service for other guests.

If your party of 14 becomes a party of 8 or even 10 and you allowed to sit at the table before the restaurant knows, you're taking up an extra 4 or 6 seats that other guests could use. Tables may have to wait or be turned away.

Likewise, even if you're a small party--say of 4--and you hold an incomplete table while others are waiting, that's not fair to those waiting--e.g. table of 4 sits with 1 person at 6:30. waits to be complete until 7:15. Meanwhile, table with 6:45pm ressies is complete, but there is no table available for them. they could have been seated on time while the other party waits to be complete.

I'm not saying the restaurant in the OP's example was right, just that seating a full/busy dining room is complex and sometimes the principle of "the customer is always right" messes with other customers.

[Servorg]

Well said and you have made the case for not having "hard and fast rules" that are never deviated from, but rather handling your business in a manner that makes sense in both improving your bottom line and maintaining / sustaining good customer relations.

[alkapal]

nc213, fair enough IF the resto wasn't 1/2 empty -- which is why the failure to let the party sit and order (happily eating and drinking while waiting on the slow-pokes) is absurd.

[Scrapironchef]

Sometimes it not a question of empty seats but of staffing levels.

[nc213]

yes, Alka, that's exactly what I said, *if* the resto was not empty. I am trying to explain why these policies are sometimes necessary and how they work. I think that if diners have a better understanding of what's going on in the restaurant, they can have better dining experiences.

[alkapal]

yes, i got it.

[miss_bennet]

I don't fully understand your argument.
"Likewise, even if you're a small party--say of 4--and you hold an incomplete table while others are waiting, that's not fair to those waiting--e.g. table of 4 sits with 1 person at 6:30. waits to be complete until 7:15. Meanwhile, table with 6:45pm ressies is complete, but there is no table available for them. they could have been seated on time while the other party waits to be complete."

A table for 4 at 6:30 will not affect a table for any number of people at 6:45. 8:45, yes. If the early seating starts 45 minutes late, naturally the later seating will be affected. But another table from the early seating? Maybe I'm just not sufficiently familiar with hostessing to understand how this works.

[nc213]

it's 6:30. you have one open table. you can give it to table x, who are only 2 out of 4. or you can hold it until 6:45 and give it to table y, who has a 6:45 reservation and who arrive on time with a complete party.

scenario 1: you give it to x. they wait for their friends, who arrive at 7:15; that table takes 2hr15minutes to turn when you planned on giving it to another table at 8:30 . Table y waits until 7:00 or 7:15 for a table to open (say a table that sat at 5:30) because you don't have a table for them.

scenario 2: you tell table x they must wait until complete. You give the open table to y when they show up complete at 6:45. They are seated on time, order, etc. Table x waits for their friends to show. their friends show at 7. By 7 you have another open table--they are sat as soon as they are complete. everyone is (at least moderately) happy.

That's not the only way the scenario can go, of course. however, seating tables can be very tricky on a busy night. You never really know how long people are going to sit, despite having an average, how many ressies will show, how many people will be late, etc.
I agree with all of the people who say they expect their reservations to be honored accurately; i expect the same thing when I go out. But I know that often the rules are there for a reason. (and again, I don't subscribe to following them when the restaurant isn't busy. I think that restaurants should always be accomodating when they can, just not at the expense of other guests.)

[miss_bennet]

Yep, well I still don't thnk it makes sense. I get lost when the 6:45 reservation does not have a table. That's where my problem is. A restaurant has no business taking my reservation if they cannot uphold it. I guess I jsut never thought that they would take a reservation if they didn't have room.

[nc213]

ok, but how do you know if you'll have room? What do you do when a table sits at 5pm and stays for three hours, or even two hours, when most tables leave in 90 minutes? how do you account for the no shows and last minute cancellations?

what if you don't overbook at all, but there's an accident on the Beltway (insert your area's transportation problem here) and your 5, 5:30, and 6pm reservations are all late. They call to say they'll be late; you respond and say you'll hold their tables (being hospitable). Then you scramble like mad to try to find room for the later tables. you hope some won't show or some will be late, you apologize to the tables for the delay and buy them drinks, but there's only so much you can do.

You never know what each table is going to do. You learn and observe patterns of the restaurant. once you've been there for a while you get better at it (if you are smart and thoughtful about your job), but you can never completely predict an evening. Sometimes you don't have a table ready at the exact moment you need one through no fault of your own--you can't ever accurately predict how many open tables you'll have at one moment.

[miss_bennet]

I suppose in fine dining where more haughty customer service is the norm, one would expect to follow such inane regulations with a stiff upper lip.

The example, however, is not fine dining. Charlebois cited a chain restaurant, whose main goal is to make money. And to make that money, they have to be nice to the customer. This was likely just a case of a young, inexperienced and slightly disgruntled employee who was not suficiently empowered to break the (bad) policy. Had a MOD been called, or a complaint been registered with the company, this issue would doubtless have been dealt with differently.

[invinotheresverde]

Again, charlebois was made aware of the policy. If he didn't care for it, he was free to take his present guests someplace else. His late guests probably would've made it to the new establishment right on time. :)

[Suzy Q]

Given that you've said there were no seats in the bar, did you inquire about getting a table for 4? Quite frankly, if I were half an hour late for dinner, I would not have expected my friends to wait on me and would have called to tell them to eat without me.

[charlesbois]

Unfortunately, some members of the late party were not simply friends, but family, with the expectation that the rest of the family members would wait. Not entirely the most ideal situation, but made worse by the restaurant's policy.

I'm not sure that if we would have asked for a table for four if they would have seated us, as there were only 3 of us waiting at the time!

[Leonardo]

I see both sides. While I recognize the losses a restaurant may suffer from selfish customers who abuse them (saying they are party of 4 when in fact it was always 2 so they can get a bigger table, half the party arriving an hour late with no one ordering a thing until they come), I also see the need for a restaurant to exercise some common sense. I went with elderly members of my family to a nice non-chain place. We had reservations for 6 and 5 of us were there, and the place was 3/4 full but past peak time and crowd was thinning. They refused to seat us until our 6th person (running 15 mins late) arrived, and made us wait in a cramped uncomfortable cold area. Not only did it sour our experience and lessen the likelihood of our return, they lost at least $100 in extra sales from drinks and apps.

Policies and rules are made to be broken in the name of good business, common sense, and compassion.

[MakingSense]

No, Leonardo, policies and rules are not meant to be broken. They can however be flexible when "good business, common sense, and compassion" overcome mindless adherence to policies and rules that make no sense under circumstances that clearly call for alternate actions.
Everybody knows the difference. Clearly, the elderly, disabled, people with small children or those with extenuating circumstances can be accommodated by thoughtful and creative staff.

[meatn3]

Exactly! This is why there is a MOD - theoretically a person capable of making good decisions when things aren't going according to plan. The mention earlier of "breaking the rules" - sometimes too rigid of adherence just doesn't make sense. There is often a win-win situation and a good MOD looks for a way to make that happen - its called creating good will and THAT is often what allows a biz to make it or not.

[Leonardo]

Ummm, yeah...5 of the 6 in my party were over 75.

[Suzy Q]

Sorry Charles - I assumed 4. I meant asking for a table matching the number of diners there on time.

[byeCalihelloBahamas]

Touchy subject, ey?

I have to go with charlesbois on this one...

While I completely understand and agree with a restaurant's policy to not seat until the entire party is present, in this unique situation, the restaurant's attitude towards him was just plain wrong.

Had it been 8pm on a Sat, yes, tough sh**, wait for the rest of your party,but it wasn't. The restaurant was not at capacity, and would not be for hours to come.

Blaming the restaurant for your DC's tardiness?? Uh, I don't think he was doing that. Simply stating in this situation, it was the restaurant that lost out, not him.

Policy is policy, I get it, I am a server. And yes, I understand there are people out there that will pull the "you did it for me last time" thing, but come on, what's the difference? That really has no relevance on the initial question/opinion. Especially since anyone that would dare say that, is obviously a moron...

[Lizard]

Did you ask or mention to the host that you were interested in eating and drinking something while you waited for your friends, who were late and stopping the proper meal from starting on time?

[jfood]

If the MOD was worth his weight in salt, this is how he should have handled this situation. Let's assume rush begins at 6PM (charlesbois says 50% full at 330). Between 330 and 600 there are two choices, revenue with 4 people at a 6-top or no revenue with an empty table. Since MOD wants that 6-top at 6PM, he should have seated the less than full party when they arrived and told them the table needs to turn at 530. Grab what revenue he can between the slow hours (servers get revenue too) and if laters show up great, if not he at least earned some money.

Once rush begins, full party rules are OK with jfood. If the whole party is not present, next on the list, but the light party stays at the top of the list, not removed. At a reso-only restaurant, it depends. Mostly jfood would side with the restaurant with a little slack given to the customer if some of the party is present.

[Suzy Q]

jfood, my friend, your plan is sound, and I agree with you on all but one point. Had the MOD dared to tell a party that there was a time constraint on their visit, there would be a lengthy and vitriolic thread on CH about it immediately thereafter discussing the nerve of that particular establishment.

[jfood]

SQ

jfood does not disagree with your vitriolic reaction from others after reading the "reservation policy thread" (jfood is keeping his paws off writing any more on that one).

jfood just accepted a 615-630 reso for V-Day with the understanding that the table is due to turn at 800. if he did not like the timeframe, he could go elsewhere. Jfoodis pleased as punch to eat at one of his favorite restos with his love on V-Day.

[Suzy Q]

And in the end, that's what it's all about. :-)

[dolores]

>>Had the MOD dared to tell a party that there was a time constraint on their visit,

And that would be a restaurant to which I wouldn't return.

With so many restaurants out there, why return to any that give the patron grief?