View Single Post
  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to nyc.food,rec.food.restaurants,alt.fan.miss-manners,ny.general
NYC XYZ NYC XYZ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Fee for Sharing???


Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Why not?


I'd already told you: bringing in outside food defeats the point of
that particular restaurant; plate-sharing is often part and parcel of
communal dining in any restaurant.

>It's lost revenue, just the same.
> Revenue is revenue is revenue.


There is NO COST to plate-sharing.

> So...your date didn't order a main course why?


Like I said, she seemed to have been on a diet.

> After all, the purpose is to eat.


She had soup and salad -- and some of the paella.

> Why is it morally
> superior to share a main course than to bring in your
> own birthday cake or a special bottle of wine?


I never said it was. And unless one's own cake or wine invovles the
restaurant preparing it, refrigerating it, serving it -- etc. -- I
don't see why there should be a charge for it, as long as it's
incidental.

> Some do. As I've said repeatedly, there are many
> ways to skin this cat, and different restaurants choose
> differently depending on their clientele.


And as I've said repeatedly, there are some things which lie at the
very heart of what it means to eat with company that it's asinine to
charge for it as if it was beyond the call of duty for the restaurant.

> They penalize
> the light eater because the light eater is the one causing
> the revenue problem!


There is NO PROBLEM, except wishing to define it as such.

> It's no different from any other
> business having a minimum order.


A minimum order stipulation is FAIR.

A plate-sharing fee is PURE GREED. Obviously a person would rather
just buy a $6 salad than have to pay a $6 fee for nothing. So if your
concern is to sell more food, why not give the man a salad to go? But
no, the poor businessman would rather charge a fee for nothing instead
of stating upfront that there is a minimum order necessary.

GREED. DISHONESTY.

> Some companies choose
> to limit things by having a minimum order.


So just come out and say it instead of pussy-footing around with
fine-print legalese like a car commercial.

> Other companies
> allow small orders, but have to make up the lost money
> in other ways.


There is NO "lost" money.

Did you "lose" money by not having been an investment banker? Did you
"lose" money by not having been President of the United States? Did
you "lose" anything by having spent time and calories opening the door
for someone who didn't acknowledge your courtesy?

> Which they choose depends on their business
> model, same as the restaurant.


NO. Actually, as this conversation makes clear, it all depends on who
they can get to put up with the scheme.

> Fortunately, there are lots
> of restaurants out there. If you don't like the policies of
> this one, don't go back. You'll still end up paying for
> things one way or another at other restaurants, but if
> you find it more palatable, then that's absolutely your
> prerogative.


Of course it is, no one's arguing that.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka