Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Exactly. Furthermore, the sharing fee is typically
> substantially less than the cost of the second main course,
> so even then the diner is getting off cheaper than they
> would have if they got a separate main course.

Oh please, that's the most blatantly self-serving excuse this side of
WMDs. Why not just force another soup or appetizer on the diner, then.
Bag it to go, if you're so concerned about the well-being of your
guests.

But of course, it's not about taking care of the customer, is it? No,
instead of making money from happy customers, it's being happy from
customer money. Same difference, in a way, but the emphasis is
certainly different.

> Similarly
> with a corkage fee--even with a pretty exorbitant corkage
> fee (and some are quite high), you still come out ahead
> in many restaurants bringing your own wine and the restaurant
> offsets the significant loss in revenue from you not buying
> off their wine list.

Bringing in food or drinks from the outside isn't comparable. To not
eat at the establishment defeats the whole purpose of the establishment
being established! But to share food, if not at a buffet, is really
innocuous. Why penalize "light" eater? By the pro-plate-sharing-fee
logic, the restauranteur should make available reduced portions of a
dish at reduced prices for those dieting, etc.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka