I'm by no means an expert but I've worked in a few. Dimitri (love you,
dear!) made a comment in the Crying Child at a Romantic Dinner thread about
the OP being peeved from the get-go for having to wait past the reservation
time for an obviously empty table. Possibly so since they mentioned it
right off the bat.

I've been a server as well as a hostess. I also worked the back of the
house doing payroll (and yes, Peter, I recorded what would be reported by
the restaurant as taxable tips based on sales). From my experience: Tables
are seated on a rotating basis so no one server gets slammed while another
stands idle. (There are other factors, of course, such as guests requesting
smoking, non-smoking, first available, someone requesting a specific server,
etc.).

So let us say the poster (assuming he's for real and forgetting the crying
toddler) was seated immediately in a station where the server had just been
seated twice with a party of 4 at each table. Now the server is busy
getting drink orders (even if it's coffee or tea) for 8 people, not to
mention food. The poster and his wife would have gotten less than stellar
service without the lag in seating because then the server would be "in the
weeds". Granted, the server could have asked someone else to pick up the
table (a frequent occurrence) but then they would have lost the tip (not
that the poster bothered to tip in the first place, but this isn't really
about that poster). There is a method to this staggered seating madness.

And let us not forget, servers have more to do than take orders and haul out
plates of food. Someone makes sure there is enough coffee and tea made for
the patrons and it sure isn't the kitchen staff. Someone makes sure there
are condiments available, salad dressings are prepared, desserts are topped
with whatever. It's not the kitchen staff. If they roll silverware,
whether it's in paper or linen, it's the server who has to do it.

If a server was really good I've had them come and *ask* me to double or
triple seat them. They know what they can handle. They were always the
ones with the most money in their pocket at the end of the night.

If you sit back and watch (and I know you have) there is an ebb and flow of
patrons. Some linger and chat, others eat and get out. Turning tables is
essential to a server's income. But you can't just walk over and say "time
to leave", hence the willingness of some servers to pick up tables in other
stations.

My point is, there is a reason for some tables sitting empty for 10 minutes
before they are seated, especially on a busy night. And I think it was
Lisa-Ann who pointed out, sometimes the manager didn't schedule enough
servers, or, thinking it was going to be a slow night, cut a couple of
servers and closed some stations early only to find a sudden influx of
unexpected customers. This is why we estimated and informed customers of
"wait times". They could leave or they could wait. There wasn't much to be
done about that.

Jill
--
I used to have a handle on life...but it broke off.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> I'm by no means an expert but I've worked in a few. Dimitri (love you,
> dear!) made a comment in the Crying Child at a Romantic Dinner thread about
> the OP being peeved from the get-go for having to wait past the reservation
> time for an obviously empty table. Possibly so since they mentioned it
> right off the bat.
>
> I've been a server as well as a hostess. I also worked the back of the
> house doing payroll (and yes, Peter, I recorded what would be reported by
> the restaurant as taxable tips based on sales). From my experience: Tables
> are seated on a rotating basis so no one server gets slammed while another
> stands idle. (There are other factors, of course, such as guests requesting
> smoking, non-smoking, first available, someone requesting a specific server,
> etc.).
>
> So let us say the poster (assuming he's for real and forgetting the crying
> toddler) was seated immediately in a station where the server had just been
> seated twice with a party of 4 at each table. Now the server is busy
> getting drink orders (even if it's coffee or tea) for 8 people, not to
> mention food. The poster and his wife would have gotten less than stellar
> service without the lag in seating because then the server would be "in the
> weeds". Granted, the server could have asked someone else to pick up the
> table (a frequent occurrence) but then they would have lost the tip (not
> that the poster bothered to tip in the first place, but this isn't really
> about that poster). There is a method to this staggered seating madness.
>
> And let us not forget, servers have more to do than take orders and haul out
> plates of food. Someone makes sure there is enough coffee and tea made for
> the patrons and it sure isn't the kitchen staff. Someone makes sure there
> are condiments available, salad dressings are prepared, desserts are topped
> with whatever. It's not the kitchen staff. If they roll silverware,
> whether it's in paper or linen, it's the server who has to do it.
>
> If a server was really good I've had them come and *ask* me to double or
> triple seat them. They know what they can handle. They were always the
> ones with the most money in their pocket at the end of the night.
>
> If you sit back and watch (and I know you have) there is an ebb and flow of
> patrons. Some linger and chat, others eat and get out. Turning tables is
> essential to a server's income. But you can't just walk over and say "time
> to leave", hence the willingness of some servers to pick up tables in other
> stations.
>
> My point is, there is a reason for some tables sitting empty for 10 minutes
> before they are seated, especially on a busy night. And I think it was
> Lisa-Ann who pointed out, sometimes the manager didn't schedule enough
> servers, or, thinking it was going to be a slow night, cut a couple of
> servers and closed some stations early only to find a sudden influx of
> unexpected customers. This is why we estimated and informed customers of
> "wait times". They could leave or they could wait. There wasn't much to be
> done about that.
>
> Jill
> --
> I used to have a handle on life...but it broke off.

You're right on the money - there are a lot of reasons a table sits empty before
the patron is seated. I don't think the patrons understand nor should they have
to. It is the obligation of the host(ess) to communicate with the patron. All
he/she had to do was to say "We'll seat you as soon as your server finishes
setting the table" or some such BS. - Problem solved - instead the patron is
standing there staring at the EMPTY table and letting the blood pressure go up
and up.

It's just poor form to let the person WITH Reservations Wait.

Dimitri

PS love you too.
dc

Dimitri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My point is, there is a reason for some tables sitting empty for 10
>> minutes before they are seated, especially on a busy night. And I
>> think it was Lisa-Ann who pointed out, sometimes the manager didn't
>> schedule enough servers, or, thinking it was going to be a slow
>> night, cut a couple of servers and closed some stations early only
>> to find a sudden influx of unexpected customers. This is why we
>> estimated and informed customers of "wait times". They could leave
>> or they could wait. There wasn't much to be done about that.
>>
>> Jill
>> --
>> I used to have a handle on life...but it broke off.
>
> You're right on the money - there are a lot of reasons a table sits
> empty before the patron is seated. I don't think the patrons
> understand nor should they have to. It is the obligation of the
> host(ess) to communicate with the patron. All he/she had to do was
> to say "We'll seat you as soon as your server finishes setting the
> table" or some such BS. - Problem solved - instead the patron is
> standing there staring at the EMPTY table and letting the blood
> pressure go up and up.
>
> It's just poor form to let the person WITH Reservations Wait.
>
> Dimitri
>
> PS love you too.
> dc

True enough; it should definitely be communicated. But the patrons with
reservations have no idea whether that table meets their requested criteria
(back to smoking/non, etc.) so to stew over an empty table might be to stew
over nothing. Lets assume they demanded to be seated there ("its empty,
seat us there NOW!" - and we all know there are those types!). Turns out to
be smoking when they wanted non. Now what do you do? A good hostess would
look at the wait list and explain it's not the right section for them,
apologize, try to get a busboy to bus another table in the correct section
more quickly. But then again, I haven't run into very many "good" hostesses
since I was one! LOL

Jill

This was a really good explanation, Jill. We knew some of it, but
probably needed to hear all of it. Thanks.
Nanctee

Hey troll, why do you keep shape - shifting to avoid our killfiles?

--
Best
Greg

"nancree" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This was a really good explanation, Jill. We knew some of it, but
> probably needed to hear all of it. Thanks.
> Nanctee
>

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Hey troll, why do you keep shape - shifting to avoid our killfiles?

Doesn't your killfile software have the Smellorama option update... to
screen out Nancreep with the pull down menu set it to "asshole"...
naturally you'll catch a few other stinkers.... but no problemo, once a
week click on "Flush".

Sheldon

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> said:

> Hey troll, why do you keep shape - shifting to avoid our killfiles?

Greg, have you tried just filtering the name, instead of the e-mail
address?

Carol

jmcquown wrote:
>
> I'm by no means an expert but I've worked in a few. Dimitri (love you,
> dear!) made a comment in the Crying Child at a Romantic Dinner thread about
> the OP being peeved from the get-go for having to wait past the reservation
> time for an obviously empty table. Possibly so since they mentioned it
> right off the bat.
>
> I've been a server as well as a hostess. I also worked the back of the
> house doing payroll (and yes, Peter, I recorded what would be reported by
> the restaurant as taxable tips based on sales). From my experience: Tables
> are seated on a rotating basis so no one server gets slammed while another
> stands idle. (There are other factors, of course, such as guests requesting
> smoking, non-smoking, first available, someone requesting a specific server,
> etc.).
>
> So let us say the poster (assuming he's for real and forgetting the crying
> toddler) was seated immediately in a station where the server had just been
> seated twice with a party of 4 at each table. Now the server is busy
> getting drink orders (even if it's coffee or tea) for 8 people, not to
> mention food. The poster and his wife would have gotten less than stellar
> service without the lag in seating because then the server would be "in the
> weeds". Granted, the server could have asked someone else to pick up the
> table (a frequent occurrence) but then they would have lost the tip (not
> that the poster bothered to tip in the first place, but this isn't really
> about that poster). There is a method to this staggered seating madness.
>
> And let us not forget, servers have more to do than take orders and haul out
> plates of food. Someone makes sure there is enough coffee and tea made for
> the patrons and it sure isn't the kitchen staff. Someone makes sure there
> are condiments available, salad dressings are prepared, desserts are topped
> with whatever. It's not the kitchen staff. If they roll silverware,
> whether it's in paper or linen, it's the server who has to do it.
>
> If a server was really good I've had them come and *ask* me to double or
> triple seat them. They know what they can handle. They were always the
> ones with the most money in their pocket at the end of the night.
>
> If you sit back and watch (and I know you have) there is an ebb and flow of
> patrons. Some linger and chat, others eat and get out. Turning tables is
> essential to a server's income. But you can't just walk over and say "time
> to leave", hence the willingness of some servers to pick up tables in other
> stations.
>
> My point is, there is a reason for some tables sitting empty for 10 minutes
> before they are seated, especially on a busy night. And I think it was
> Lisa-Ann who pointed out, sometimes the manager didn't schedule enough
> servers, or, thinking it was going to be a slow night, cut a couple of
> servers and closed some stations early only to find a sudden influx of
> unexpected customers. This is why we estimated and informed customers of
> "wait times". They could leave or they could wait. There wasn't much to be
> done about that.
>
> Jill
> --
> I used to have a handle on life...but it broke off.

Jill, I appreciate all the points you make about why the
customers might not be seated right away in the empty
table, however, I don't agree that any of those are valid
reasons to keep someone waiting. Especially if they have
to stand around. I would rather be seated asap and have
them explain that they're extremely busy and that there
will be a slight delay or something to that effect. I'd
sure as hell rather wait sitting than standing. And I don't
particularly like sitting at the bar while I wait (if that
is an option). And it just looks bad to have someone standing
(or whatever) waiting for their table when there is a
table "available". The customer doesn't care about all
the back of the house "reasons" for making them wait.
And I certainly don't mind waiting to be served once I'm
comfortably seated and the delay is explained and apologized
for. It's the manager's job (and the other employees, too)
to make everything work out without inconveniencing the
customers unnecessarily.

Kate

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:05:00 -0400, Kate Connally >
wrote:

>Jill, I appreciate all the points you make about why the
>customers might not be seated right away in the empty
>table, however, I don't agree that any of those are valid
>reasons to keep someone waiting. Especially if they have
>to stand around. I would rather be seated asap and have
>them explain that they're extremely busy and that there
>will be a slight delay or something to that effect. I'd
>sure as hell rather wait sitting than standing. And I don't
>particularly like sitting at the bar while I wait (if that
>is an option). And it just looks bad to have someone standing
>(or whatever) waiting for their table when there is a
>table "available". The customer doesn't care about all
>the back of the house "reasons" for making them wait.

My thoughts exactly. Dining out isn't about servers and their
problems.

>And I certainly don't mind waiting to be served once I'm
>comfortably seated and the delay is explained and apologized
>for. It's the manager's job (and the other employees, too)
>to make everything work out without inconveniencing the
>customers unnecessarily.
>
>Kate

What she said! How difficult is it to explain, apologize, and make
the customers comfortable? (I would appreciate sitting at the bar
with a free drink :>)

The OP was a customer whose party made a reservation and arranged
their schedule for an evening at that restaurant. Why do people
forget this? Even walk-ins are not people who are asking for a free
meal or any sort of priviledge. Unless the restaurant is trying to
develop a mystique by treating customers shabbily, you'd think that
people in the "hospitality business" would know the essence of
rudimentary hospitality.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"Kate Connally" > wrote in message
...

<snipped>

> Jill, I appreciate all the points you make about why the
> customers might not be seated right away in the empty
> table, however, I don't agree that any of those are valid
> reasons to keep someone waiting. Especially if they have
> to stand around. I would rather be seated asap and have
> them explain that they're extremely busy and that there
> will be a slight delay or something to that effect. I'd
> sure as hell rather wait sitting than standing. And I don't
> particularly like sitting at the bar while I wait (if that
> is an option). And it just looks bad to have someone standing
> (or whatever) waiting for their table when there is a
> table "available". The customer doesn't care about all
> the back of the house "reasons" for making them wait.
> And I certainly don't mind waiting to be served once I'm
> comfortably seated and the delay is explained and apologized
> for. It's the manager's job (and the other employees, too)
> to make everything work out without inconveniencing the
> customers unnecessarily.
>
> Kate

I agree with you, Kate. For a restaurant to say "We do things this way and
if it incoveniences the customer, tough" is perhaps the definition of bad
customer service. What they should do is say "We need to do things in a way
that does not incovenience the customer."

Peter Aitken

Kate Connally wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> My point is, there is a reason for some tables sitting empty for 10
>> minutes before they are seated, especially on a busy night. And I
>> think it was Lisa-Ann who pointed out, sometimes the manager didn't
>> schedule enough servers, or, thinking it was going to be a slow
>> night, cut a couple of servers and closed some stations early only
>> to find a sudden influx of unexpected customers. This is why we
>> estimated and informed customers of "wait times". They could leave
>> or they could wait. There wasn't much to be done about that.
>>
>> Jill
>> --
>> I used to have a handle on life...but it broke off.
>
> Jill, I appreciate all the points you make about why the
> customers might not be seated right away in the empty
> table, however, I don't agree that any of those are valid
> reasons to keep someone waiting. Especially if they have
> to stand around. I would rather be seated asap and have
> them explain that they're extremely busy and that there
> will be a slight delay or something to that effect. I'd
> sure as hell rather wait sitting than standing. And I don't
> particularly like sitting at the bar while I wait (if that
> is an option). And it just looks bad to have someone standing
> (or whatever) waiting for their table when there is a
> table "available". The customer doesn't care about all
> the back of the house "reasons" for making them wait.
> And I certainly don't mind waiting to be served once I'm
> comfortably seated and the delay is explained and apologized
> for. It's the manager's job (and the other employees, too)
> to make everything work out without inconveniencing the
> customers unnecessarily.
>
> Kate

Point taken. However, still from the other side of the fence, once a
customer is seated they get more antsy than if they were told there is a
wait and are still in the lobby (btw, there were always seats in the lobby
where I worked except perhaps on a busy weekend night). They want drinks,
they expect service within minutes of their butts hitting the chair. They
do not appreciate being seated at a table and then told, "you'll have to
wait, sorry". (And yes, as a hostess I ran drinks when the servers were in
the weeds.)

Maybe it's psychological but the affect of seating someone is to say "you
will now get service", not 10 or 20 minutes later.

Jill

Kate Connally > said:

> Jill, I appreciate all the points you make about why the
> customers might not be seated right away in the empty
> table, however, I don't agree that any of those are valid
> reasons to keep someone waiting. Especially if they have
> to stand around. I would rather be seated asap and have
> them explain that they're extremely busy and that there
> will be a slight delay or something to that effect.

I agree, Kate.

Carol

Sheldon wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Hey troll, why do you keep shape - shifting to avoid our killfiles?
>
> Doesn't your killfile software have the Smellorama option update... to
> screen out Nancreep with the pull down menu set it to "asshole"...
> naturally you'll catch a few other stinkers.... but no problemo, once a
> week click on "Flush".


Lol...it's become quite a problem lately what with Nancreep and then we have
our periodic invasion of Brit poofter potheads, e.g. "Shaun re" and their
bugger - ish ilk...

Some folx consider me a troll and I guess have me killfiled but at least I
don't constantly shape - shift to avoid killfiles :-)

--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:58:43 -0500, Damsel >
wrote:

>Kate Connally > said:
>
>> Jill, I appreciate all the points you make about why the
>> customers might not be seated right away in the empty
>> table, however, I don't agree that any of those are valid
>> reasons to keep someone waiting. Especially if they have
>> to stand around. I would rather be seated asap and have
>> them explain that they're extremely busy and that there
>> will be a slight delay or something to that effect.
>
>I agree, Kate.
>
>Carol

So do I. Actually, in Europe, I never had to wait more than 1 minute
if I had a reservation, so this 20-minute standing thing just amazes
me. Actually, without a reservation, nobody will have you wait here
usually - you'll be told there is no table, period. I guess that
derives from the fact that restaurants don't *expect* more than 1
seating per evening - even though it may happen.

Nathalie in Switzerland

In article >,
(Curly Sue) wrote:
>
> What she said! How difficult is it to explain, apologize, and make
> the customers comfortable? (I would appreciate sitting at the bar
> with a free drink :>)
>
> The OP was a customer whose party made a reservation and arranged
> their schedule for an evening at that restaurant. Why do people
> forget this? Even walk-ins are not people who are asking for a free
> meal or any sort of priviledge. Unless the restaurant is trying to
> develop a mystique by treating customers shabbily, you'd think that
> people in the "hospitality business" would know the essence of
> rudimentary hospitality.

Sue, well said. I don't see what the big deal would be for the host or
hostess to explain the delay and offer to seat the customers at a table
in the dining room if bar area isn't available. Either way, offering
customers a free drink and even maybe a free cheese plate or something
similar to nibble on while they wait is bound to make a positive
impression.

jmcquown wrote:
> Kate Connally wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >> My point is, there is a reason for some tables sitting empty for 10
> >> minutes before they are seated, especially on a busy night. And I
> >> think it was Lisa-Ann who pointed out, sometimes the manager didn't
> >> schedule enough servers, or, thinking it was going to be a slow
> >> night, cut a couple of servers and closed some stations early only
> >> to find a sudden influx of unexpected customers. This is why we
> >> estimated and informed customers of "wait times". They could leave
> >> or they could wait. There wasn't much to be done about that.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >> --
> >> I used to have a handle on life...but it broke off.
> >
> > Jill, I appreciate all the points you make about why the
> > customers might not be seated right away in the empty
> > table, however, I don't agree that any of those are valid
> > reasons to keep someone waiting. Especially if they have
> > to stand around. I would rather be seated asap and have
> > them explain that they're extremely busy and that there
> > will be a slight delay or something to that effect. I'd
> > sure as hell rather wait sitting than standing. And I don't
> > particularly like sitting at the bar while I wait (if that
> > is an option). And it just looks bad to have someone standing
> > (or whatever) waiting for their table when there is a
> > table "available". The customer doesn't care about all
> > the back of the house "reasons" for making them wait.
> > And I certainly don't mind waiting to be served once I'm
> > comfortably seated and the delay is explained and apologized
> > for. It's the manager's job (and the other employees, too)
> > to make everything work out without inconveniencing the
> > customers unnecessarily.
> >
> > Kate
>
> Point taken. However, still from the other side of the fence, once a
> customer is seated they get more antsy than if they were told there is a
> wait and are still in the lobby (btw, there were always seats in the lobby
> where I worked except perhaps on a busy weekend night). They want drinks,
> they expect service within minutes of their butts hitting the chair. They
> do not appreciate being seated at a table and then told, "you'll have to
> wait, sorry". (And yes, as a hostess I ran drinks when the servers were in
> the weeds.)
>
> Maybe it's psychological but the affect of seating someone is to say "you
> will now get service", not 10 or 20 minutes later.

I disagree. There's is no excuse for totally ignoring a recently
seated patron for more than 3 minutes... sure you can scream "busy"
(damn well hope yer busy, or the joints a bummer) but there is never
any excuse not to immediately take the drink order and then deliver the
drinks within 5 minutes or less... especially at a high priced joint.
I don't think folks want their order taken within minutes of being
seated, most folks don't like to rush while making their menu choices,
and then most folks don't want their food served within minutes of
having their order taken, I know I wouldn't, that means it's a fast
food joint, with dishes previously prepared. When I'm paying over $150
for dinner I don't want any stinkin' salad that's been preped in the AM
and sat in the fridge till the PM... then it may as well be served in a
styrofoam clamshell from McD's. You can get away with making the
patrons wait till the grits butted waitresses at your local greezy
spoons finish discussing the day's Soaps but that is considered
uncivilized at a 4 Star restaurant. I don't want any waitperson
informing me or apologizing, I want none of your conversation
whatsoever... just shut up and serve, and move like you're alive, and
soon as you've laid down the last dish get the F outa my sight...
you'll know when I need you again, you'll see my head move 20=BA to the
right. And don't you dare tell me your name, not unless you you also
tell me your price, when, where, and what.

I'm beginning to think none of yoose ever been to a 4 Star
restaurantt... probably think the diner at the edge of town puts down
genuwine checked cloth on the tables at 6PM it's high fallutin'... I
mean like 4 Star restaurants don't have Bottomless Bowl Pasta Nite. LOL

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

> There's is no excuse for totally ignoring a recently seated patron for
> more than 3 minutes... sure you can scream "busy" (damn well hope yer
> busy, or the joints a bummer) but there is never any excuse not to
> immediately take the drink order and then deliver the drinks within 5
> minutes or less... especially at a high priced joint.

The discussion in this thread has been about restaurants in general rather
than about four-star restaurants in particular, and I agree with Sheldon
that if I go to a good restaurant, then I expect good service. One of the
hallmarks of good restaurants is that they are adequately staffed, trained,
and motivated to *provide* good service, even when the restaurant is
completely full.

However, I disagree with Sheldon on not wanting to know the name of the
person serving you. Sometimes, you just "click" with your waitperson: The
first time I went to Farallon in San Francisco, my date and I were lucky
enough to receive *stellar* service. We described our tastes to our
waitress, and relied on her to advise us as to which courses we'd like and
in which order they ought to be served. (We were ordering four appetizers
and sharing an entree.) We also told her what wine characteristics we liked,
and for each course she made wine recommendations which turned out to be
spot-on. We request to be seated in her section every time we dine there,
and she enhances our dining experience immeasurably. (She's cute, too!) How
would we be able to do that if, like Sheldon, we never found out her name?

Bob

Bob wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> There's is no excuse for totally ignoring a recently seated patron
>> for more than 3 minutes... sure you can scream "busy" (damn well
>> hope yer busy, or the joints a bummer) but there is never any excuse
>> not to immediately take the drink order and then deliver the drinks
>> within 5 minutes or less... especially at a high priced joint.
>
> The discussion in this thread has been about restaurants in general
> rather than about four-star restaurants in particular, and I agree
> with Sheldon that if I go to a good restaurant, then I expect good
> service. One of the hallmarks of good restaurants is that they are
> adequately staffed, trained, and motivated to *provide* good service,
> even when the restaurant is completely full.
>
Sheldon also makes my point when he says when he's seated he expects his
drink order (when I say "order taken", I mean the start of service from
drink to dessert, not tell me what you want to eat the minute your butt hits
the seat) to be taken within 3 minutes. If you're still in the lobby you
don't have any such expectations unless you choose to wait in the bar.

> However, I disagree with Sheldon on not wanting to know the name of
> the person serving you. Sometimes, you just "click" with your
> waitperson: The first time I went to Farallon in San Francisco, my
> date and I were lucky enough to receive *stellar* service. We
> described our tastes to our waitress, and relied on her to advise us
> as to which courses we'd like and in which order they ought to be
> served. (We were ordering four appetizers and sharing an entree.) We
> also told her what wine characteristics we liked, and for each course
> she made wine recommendations which turned out to be spot-on. We
> request to be seated in her section every time we dine there, and she
> enhances our dining experience immeasurably. (She's cute, too!) How
> would we be able to do that if, like Sheldon, we never found out her
> name?
>
> Bob

I agree, Bob. When I was on the server end I often had repeat (call)
customers. I've also, as a patron, had servers I request if they are on
shift because everything just jibes and the service as well as the meal is a
delight because of it.

Jill

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> The discussion in this thread has been about restaurants in general rather
> than about four-star restaurants in particular, and I agree with Sheldon
> that if I go to a good restaurant, then I expect good service. One of the
> hallmarks of good restaurants is that they are adequately staffed,
> trained,
> and motivated to *provide* good service, even when the restaurant is
> completely full.
>
> However, I disagree with Sheldon on not wanting to know the name of the
> person serving you. Sometimes, you just "click" with your waitperson: The
> first time I went to Farallon in San Francisco, my date and I were lucky
> enough to receive *stellar* service. We described our tastes to our
> waitress, and relied on her to advise us as to which courses we'd like and
> in which order they ought to be served. (We were ordering four appetizers
> and sharing an entree.) We also told her what wine characteristics we
> liked,
> and for each course she made wine recommendations which turned out to be
> spot-on. We request to be seated in her section every time we dine there,
> and she enhances our dining experience immeasurably. (She's cute, too!)
> How
> would we be able to do that if, like Sheldon, we never found out her name?
>
> Bob
>

I have no objection to being told the waiter's name. I do object when they
try to get buddy-buddy.


--
Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken wrote:

> I have no objection to being told the waiter's name. I do object when they
> try to get buddy-buddy.


Like when they sit down at your table to take your order!

--
Best
Greg

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:14:38 GMT, Gregory Morrow wrote:

>
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> > I have no objection to being told the waiter's name. I do object when they
> > try to get buddy-buddy.
>
>
> Like when they sit down at your table to take your order!

Farallon isn't *that * kind of restaurant.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:08:23 +0200, Nathalie Chiva wrote:

> So do I. Actually, in Europe, I never had to wait more than 1 minute
> if I had a reservation, so this 20-minute standing thing just amazes
> me. Actually, without a reservation, nobody will have you wait here
> usually - you'll be told there is no table, period. I guess that
> derives from the fact that restaurants don't *expect* more than 1
> seating per evening - even though it may happen.
>
In Europe, dining is a civilized social experience where customers
linger over a meal... talking. We tend to eat and run here, so
restaurants can count on turning their tables twice or maybe three
times during the dinner hours - if they're lucky.

On 8 Jul 2005 23:07:08 -0500, Bob wrote:

> However, I disagree with Sheldon on not wanting to know the name of the
> person serving you. Sometimes, you just "click" with your waitperson: The
> first time I went to Farallon in San Francisco, my date and I were lucky
> enough to receive *stellar* service. We described our tastes to our
> waitress, and relied on her to advise us as to which courses we'd like and
> in which order they ought to be served. (We were ordering four appetizers
> and sharing an entree.) We also told her what wine characteristics we liked,
> and for each course she made wine recommendations which turned out to be
> spot-on. We request to be seated in her section every time we dine there,
> and she enhances our dining experience immeasurably. (She's cute, too!) How
> would we be able to do that if, like Sheldon, we never found out her name?

First of all, if you didn't get that type of service in an upscale San
Francisco restaurant like Farrallon, it wouldn't be in business the
next time you decided to go. Secondly, you must be a salesman or
self-employed (which means the sales part is built in). Salesmen are
the only people I know who get names and actually use them again.


In any case, I don't want the wait staff to introduce themselves
either. I don't want a friendly relationship, I want a cordial one.
My assumption is the wait person I have for the evening is as well
trained and attentive/knowledgeable as everyone else. I eat out a
lot, but I don't even ask for specific wait people at the neighborhood
restaurants I go to on a 2 -3 times a month basis.

Since we're talking about the importance of taking names... AFAIC
names really count when it comes to a haircut & color. But staying
true to my personality, I give my business to a place where I get the
a great cut/color from every stylist. Of course - I walk out of there
$200 lighter too. As the saying goes: You get what you pay for.

Greg replied to Peter:

>> I have no objection to being told the waiter's name. I do object when
>> they try to get buddy-buddy.
>
> Like when they sit down at your table to take your order!

I did mention that my server was cute, didn't I? I wouldn't object if she
sat on my *lap* to take my order! :-)

But as sf noted, Farallon isn't that kind of restaurant.

Bob

sf wrote:

> you must be a salesman or self-employed (which means the sales part is
> built in). Salesmen are the only people I know who get names and actually
> use them again.

Actually, my job title is "Senior Multi-Discipline Engineer." I work for a
large defense contractor on an Air Force contract. My job is to develop,
test, and maintain a radar data processing facility.

When it comes to getting the names of people who interact with me, I only
bother to get names when service has been really outstanding (or really
crappy). Fact is, I'm TERRIBLE at remembering names.


> My assumption is the wait person I have for the evening is as well
> trained and attentive/knowledgeable as everyone else.

That might be true by some objective standard, but I'm talking about a more
subjective phenomenon, when the server can tell your tastes well enough to
make excellent recommendations as well as warn you of things you probably
WOULDN'T like. Normally, that kind of rapport is only gained with long
familiarity; finding it on a first visit to a restaurant is extraordinary.


Bob

Bob wrote:
> Greg replied to Peter:
>
>>> I have no objection to being told the waiter's name. I do object
>>> when they try to get buddy-buddy.
>>
>> Like when they sit down at your table to take your order!
>
> I did mention that my server was cute, didn't I? I wouldn't object if
> she sat on my *lap* to take my order! :-)
>
> But as sf noted, Farallon isn't that kind of restaurant.
>
> Bob

When in downtown Minneapolis, John and I were having beer and shooting pool
at the Rock Bottom Brewery one afternoon. Obviously not a 4 or 5 star
restaurant! but a fun place. The waiter, a charming fellow with too much
time on his hands in the mid-afternoon, sat down with us as we took a break
and were snacking on warm Asiago cheese dip with toasted pita chips. We
heard his whole life story. Normally this would have been annoying but he
was funny and we'd had a few beers so we didn't care. He's the one who
recommended the dip, and an artchoke dip as well which was also very tasty.

We went back for dinner one night and he was there so we requested him as
our server. He didn't sit with us that time but the place was hopping so he
didn't have time

Jill

Bob wrote something about Farralon (sp?)

So do you prefer the F. restaurant to Danko's. If so, why? I hope to go
to one or the other in the next 2 weeks. Serious question - really.

Thanks!

Kevin wrote:

> So do you prefer the F. restaurant to Danko's. If so, why? I hope to go
> to one or the other in the next 2 weeks. Serious question - really.

In part, because of the server I mentioned. It's hard to go anywhere *else*
when you've had such a consistently positive experience. Oh, I've tried: We
went to Jardinière and Aqua because we feared falling into a rut, but both
fell *well* short of the "Farallon standard."

Regarding Gary Danko's, I was treated rather shabbily there (they failed to
honor a reservation, forcing my date and me to eat at the bar -- on my
BIRTHDAY, no less!) I won't go back there again; they're obviously too busy
to treat their customers well. (Besides, Barb's nephew doesn't work there
anymore!)

Bob

Peter Aitken wrote:
> I agree with you, Kate. For a restaurant to say "We do things this way and
> if it incoveniences the customer, tough" is perhaps the definition of bad
> customer service. What they should do is say "We need to do things in a way
> that does not incovenience the customer."
>
> Peter Aitken

I don't think businesses give a shit anymore. The sheeple masses put
up with poor service so it has become the norm - and businesses know
that if you walk out, another "Drone party of four" will be in to take
your place within the blink of an eyelsh.

-L.

Kevin_Sheehy > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Bob wrote something about Farralon (sp?)
>
> So do you prefer the F. restaurant to Danko's. If so, why?

http://www.chowhound.com/california/...francisco.html

The Ranger

L.wrote:

> I don't think businesses give a shit anymore. The sheeple masses put
> up with poor service so it has become the norm - and businesses know
> that if you walk out, another "Drone party of four" will be in to take
> your place within the blink of an eyelsh.


Especially at chain places like Cheesecake Factory, Outback, etc. I guess
having to wait an hour or so for a table is now part of the "attraction" of
these places. You can have it, I don't wait on line for any restaurant...

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> L.wrote:
>
>> I don't think businesses give a shit anymore. The sheeple masses put
>> up with poor service so it has become the norm - and businesses know
>> that if you walk out, another "Drone party of four" will be in to
>> take your place within the blink of an eyelsh.
>
>
> Especially at chain places like Cheesecake Factory, Outback, etc. I
> guess having to wait an hour or so for a table is now part of the
> "attraction" of these places. You can have it, I don't wait on line
> for any restaurant...

Funny, when we were in Corinth, MS on our way down to Huntsville, AL we
asked where would be a good place to grab a bite. We were directed to a
diner that had people literally lined up out the door. The place was
straight out of the 1950's. Only stools at the counter, no tables at all,
and I think the max seating capacity must have been 20 people. The place
was jam packed with people waiting for a seat and (as I said) out the door.
We chose to go elsewhere. Not waiting is *always* a choice.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
>
> The place was
> straight out of the 1950's. Only stools at the counter, no tables at all,
> and I think the max seating capacity must have been 20 people. The place
> was jam packed with people waiting for a seat and (as I said) out the
> door.
> We chose to go elsewhere. Not waiting is *always* a choice.
>
> Jill

Agree with that. The food may have been great, or it was cheap and the
locals liked it even if it was third rate.

I recall having to wait in some vacation areas for just about anything at
dinner time. Now that my kids are long on their own we have no reason to
vacation during the off school months so we don't. May and September are
cheaper, less crowded, and have good weather.

We stopped for breakfast at a place in Bar Harbor. We were seated
immediately and there were still empty tables. The waitress told us two
weeks earlier (during tourist season) we would have had a two hour wait. I
guess you finish breakfast and get back in line for lunch.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:58:17 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:

>
>L.wrote:
>
>> I don't think businesses give a shit anymore. The sheeple masses put
>> up with poor service so it has become the norm - and businesses know
>> that if you walk out, another "Drone party of four" will be in to take
>> your place within the blink of an eyelsh.
>
>
>Especially at chain places like Cheesecake Factory, Outback, etc. I guess
>having to wait an hour or so for a table is now part of the "attraction" of
>these places. You can have it, I don't wait on line for any restaurant...
>
But that's the only way to get into Serendipity III ! (Well, you can
go ride on the Roosevelt Island Tram while you're waiting the standard
hour-and-a-half.)

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:38:23 GMT, (Curly
Sue) wrote:

>But that's the only way to get into Serendipity III ! (Well, you can
>go ride on the Roosevelt Island Tram while you're waiting the standard
>hour-and-a-half.)
>
>Sue(tm)
>Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

One hour and a half?!?! And people actually wait that long?!?!? OMG. I
think the longest I've ever waited in a restaurant was half an hour, 4
years ago in Rome, and that's because we didn't have reservation, and
it was a one-time occurrence....

Nathalie in Switzerland

On Sun 10 Jul 2005 06:38:23p, Curly Sue wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:58:17 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
> <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>L.wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think businesses give a shit anymore. The sheeple masses put
>>> up with poor service so it has become the norm - and businesses know
>>> that if you walk out, another "Drone party of four" will be in to take
>>> your place within the blink of an eyelsh.
>>
>>
>>Especially at chain places like Cheesecake Factory, Outback, etc. I
>>guess having to wait an hour or so for a table is now part of the
>>"attraction" of these places. You can have it, I don't wait on line for
>>any restaurant...
>>
> But that's the only way to get into Serendipity III ! (Well, you can
> go ride on the Roosevelt Island Tram while you're waiting the standard
> hour-and-a-half.)

Serendipity III is one of my favorite "must go" lunch places on my forays
into Manhattan, but we always go on off peak hours. Still, there is often
a wait, but not an hour and a half.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0527-2, 07/08/2005
Tested on: 7/11/2005 4:36:26 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Curly Sue" > wrote

> But that's the only way to get into Serendipity III ! (Well, you can
> go ride on the Roosevelt Island Tram while you're waiting the standard
> hour-and-a-half.)

What on earth could they be serving there that you would deliberately
and knowingly cool your heels for that long? I'd rather eat at the
Umbrella Cafe before I'd wait.

nancy

Nathalie Chiva wrote:

> One hour and a half?!?! And people actually wait that long?!?!? OMG. I
> think the longest I've ever waited in a restaurant was half an hour, 4
> years ago in Rome, and that's because we didn't have reservation, and
> it was a one-time occurrence....

I once waited over an hour for a table. We were a party of 8 and we had a
reservation. I never went back to that place, and if I had been on my own I
would have left. In my books, a reservation means the table is available
when I arrive at the appointed time, not an appointment to stand in line.

Dave Smith wrote:

>
> I once waited over an hour for a table. We were a party of 8 and we had a
> reservation. I never went back to that place, and if I had been on my own I
> would have left. In my books, a reservation means the table is available
> when I arrive at the appointed time, not an appointment to stand in line.
>
>

I agree. Otherwise, what's the point of making a "reservation"?
Cheers
Cathy