"NYC XYZ" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> But I still maintain that it doesn't add to any tangible cost to
> provide an extra plate or fork.

Probably not, no. And I agree that the reason given for the fee, to "wash
the extra dishes," sounds facetious. I suspect a more accurate reason is
that the restaurant would normally make almost twice as much money on a
two-person table as they were making on your table, and the fee is designed
to offset that "loss." (Call it an opportunity loss.) Along the lines of a
two-drink minimum at a club, if a person is taking up room in an
establishment, the establishment wants to make a certain amount of money off
of them.

> And raising prices across the board by
> a mere nickel or dime, if cost is the real reason for being a
> cheapskate to one's dining patrons, would boost average income without
> alienating customers.

I'd imagine they've thought of this, and minimums and whatever else, but
have gone with their current pricing scheme regardless. And they *must*
know that it cheeses some people off. One thing you learn from working in
the service industry, when the general public is torked off about something,
they rarely keep quiet about it. But for whatever reason, they've decided
the sharing fee is still worth it. ::shrug:: (Further speculation... only
a small minority of people every share entrees, so the ire caused by the fee
is limited to a select few, who happen to be customers the restaurant
wouldn't much mind losing to be replaced by customers who will order one
entree apiece.)

A sharing fee is not something I'm accustomed to, either, and it probably
would have raised my eyebrow, as well. But on thinking about it, I can see
where the restaurant might be coming from, at least.

Brad