Tom Sietsema's Online Chat

[Heather]

Thanks for stating what I was thinking.  And in Italy it is exactly the same way.  The table is yours for the night.

Two seatings is very common in London.

[Waitman]

Aside from the implications for the restaurant, I would add how rude lingering can be for fellow patrons.  To wit [begin rant]:

Like many on this board, my wife and I frequent 2 Amy's, which seems to be packed with people at all hours (ok, I've never been there at 3:00 on a Wednesday).  I am constantly amazed at the temerity of people who linger at their tables while the teeming masses huddle in the corners or at the bar awaiting a table.  Invariably, the longest lingerers are the largest parties--the two families of four eating together who haven't seen each other in ages.  Have your (wonderful) pizza, enjoy your ice cream, and then please give up your table to somebody else.  Frankly, I don't see the appeal of lingering at a place like 2 Amy's.  The food's great, but it's a loud and crowded dining room.  In this case at least, it's not about the profit margin of the restaurant.  I think it's about being considerate of your fellow diners.

[End rant]

I have sinned. I have dined and worried only about my own pleasure and, perhaps, whether the Barolo went with the veal.

From now on, I will keep uppermost in my mind the owner's profit margin and the waiter's sense of self worth; I will eat as fast as possible, so that my fellow diners will not be inconvenienced by my existance and, if I have a complaint, I will get a signed note from the manager that I discussed it immediately and at length, giving him a chance to make it right, but not shaking him down for a freebie, before I even consider posting anything on line.

I promise to become worthy.

[Waitman]

Two seatings is very common in London.

Is that why you're going to Spain this summer?

[Heather]

Is that why you're going to Spain this summer?

Actually we are going to London, smartass.

The idea of not being able to park my butt at a table all night doesn't offend me in the slightest. Am I in the minority here?

Edit to say that in fairness, the restaurant is not usually my final destination on a night out.

[Josh Radigan]

its never a perfect world, its dinning out. Most of us do it for social reasons and the atmosphere dictates the level of rowdiness. The food is a part of party, along with the libations and adult beverages that are served. I can tell you that when the table starts camoing, of course it can be somewhat aggrevating, but guess what, it happens maybe once a week. We usually let guests know if they are making a reservation on the earlier side for a large table that it needs to be turned back by a certain time, usually 2 1/2 hours later. That way we let the customer know what is going on, instead of the "Hi Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope everything was delightful this evening, but i was wondering if I may buy you a cocktail in our bar so that we may seat another reservation at this table." Flash ahead to our bar on the weekends. Meet-market, packed to the gills. Guess what, now I really have pissed the table off.

as Americans usually do, I being one myself, we eat so fast that its our mentality that tables will be in and out in 90 minutes. No offense Mr Landrum.

[hungry prof]

From now on, I will keep uppermost in my mind the owner's profit margin and the waiter's sense of self worth; I will eat as fast as possible, so that my fellow diners will not be inconvenienced by my existance and, if I have a complaint, I will get a signed note from the manager that I discussed it immediately and at length, giving him a chance to make it right, but not shaking him down for a freebie, before I even consider posting anything on line. 

Well, quite a talent for charicature. Nowhere in my post did I say "eat as fast as possible." I have no problem with people enjoying their meals at 2 Amy's for as long as it reasonably takes. Maybe I'm too self conscious, but I actually don't enjoy myself when I feel like I'm making others uncomfortable. Perhaps others do.

[qwertyy]

I'm finding this board and Tom's chats somewhat disheartening.

No, I do not make it a habit to linger when a restaurant is full. I also was a server and bartender for many, many years, and my brother is a restaurant consultant on the other coast. And I fully understand the problems lingering can cause on a busy night, but I'm really surprised how utterly intolerant everyone seems to be about it.

To me, restaurants are about food, experience, atmosphere, and relationships. I go to eat something that I can't or won't make myself in an enjoyable space with pleasant people, whether they're staff or my companions.

But the more I read, the more I feel on pins and needles trying to discern what I could do that will be considered reasonable and what won't.

What if I finish my meal but I'm having a nice time? What if I'm having a conversation? What if there are no seats at the bar to adjourn to? Is it a flat 120-minute limit or do we get X amount of time after our plates are cleared? If I eat fast, can I still use the full two hours?

And, no, of course I don't like it when my boss hands me a memo to write at 4:45 on a Friday. But I still do it, and I sure don't act surly to her for the rest of the day because of it.

[hungry prof]

What if I finish my meal but I'm having a nice time? What if I'm having a conversation? What if there are no seats at the bar to adjourn to? Is it a flat 120-minute limit or do we get X amount of time after our plates are cleared? If I eat fast, can I still use the full two hours?

Great questions with no simple answers in my view. I think it comes down to trusting people to use judgment and consideration, which are inherently subjective.

I also think it depends on context. There's a difference between lingering at a perpetually crowded and cramped pizza joint and lingering at a 4-star restaurant at which they probably don't have too many walk-ins waiting for the next available table.

We all run into trouble, I think, when we try to get absolute about things like this.

[jm chen]

The level of detail and the level of vitriol that the various chats, discussions, and boards can get into could make anybody wonder about their own behavior. But I wouldn't let it put you on "pins and needles."

In the absence of a stated policy, diners should probably listen to their own internal clock about whether it's reasonable to continue to sit at a table when others are clearly waiting; if their internal clock isn't up to the task, then yes, it may be incumbent upon the restaurant to take some action to move them away (such as the very gentle wording that Rabbi suggested above.)

Basically, as with the reservations (no-show) controversy some weeks back, I'm guessing it's a small number of diners who are ruining it for the rest of us.

[Audrey2025]

We all run into trouble, I think, when we try to get absolute about things like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. How long one lingers over dinner depends on so many factors--the day and time, the location, how busy the place is, relationship with the server, how long until close, etc. I understand it's important for servers to turn their tables, but I'm willing to bet there have been at least a few times when servers have been glad a particularly good group is staying. Hopefully, they are ordering another round of drinks or a share-able dessert or something while they stay, but still...

It's hard to put boundaries on special nights. It's also important to remember that you don't "own" the table or your server's attention.

[mame11]

Yesterday my business partner and I went to Kaz for lunch. They were packed but the wait for a table was not too great so we chose to wait it out. The two tables ahead of us were seated and the hostess apologized to us that there would be a bit longer wait than they had anticipated as a two top had paid but not departed. We finally were seated and enjoyed our light sushi lunch.

I noticed as we were leaving the couple still sitting at the table. They had not ordered anymore food or drink but felt content during the busiest time of the day to keep a table occupied. (I know they didn't eat anything else because we were eventually seated next to their table).

I felt for Kaz at that point because I knew some people waiting for a table left after a while and there was still a line when we left.

Enjoying a meal is one thing but restaurants are businesses. If you are going to dawdle during a period where more patrons could be seated, at least keep ordering food or drink. Sometimes I feel for servers too because they supplement the meager wages restaurants pay with tips. If table doesn't turn over and a bill isn't high, their wages go down.

It is hard to compare dining out in America to that in Europe. We have very different patterns, and very different economic models.

[DLB]

Thanks for stating what I was thinking.  And in Italy it is exactly the same way.  The table is yours for the night.

I understand both sides, however I think in other parts of the world it's not really about the profit. This past May my wife and I were in Paris and we had what I thought were early seatings at two different Bistros ( La Petit Chaise and Le Regalade (sp) ). we were there until the place closed. It was not because we were just hanging at the table. They gave you time to enjoy the meal and your wine without feeling rushed between your courses. Our Counrty is different, most people don't have the time to take 4 hrs for dinner, and most restaurants are trying to turn a profit.

In Paris most Restaurnts are doing it for the love not profit. I can only think of a few places that I have visited that are doing it for the love in DC. They would be; Komi, Rays the Steak, Colorado kitchen and Two Amys to name a few.

[qwertyy]

In Paris most Restaurnts are doing it for the love not profit. I can only think of a few places that I have visited that are doing it for the love in DC. They would be; Komi, Rays the Steak, Colorado kitchen and Two Amys to name a few.

And we're back to the beginning again. If Ray's is doing it for love, why do they kick your tush to the curb after 90 minutes?

[Mark Slater]

And we're back to the beginning again. If Ray's is doing it for love, why do they kick your tush to the curb after 90 minutes?

As has been reiterated here A MILLION TIMES, they inform you of that at the time the reservation is made and it applies to the 6 o'clock reservations ONLY.

[DanielK]

In Paris most Restaurnts are doing it for the love not profit.

Sorry, I can't let this one go by. The places in Paris doing it without making a profit stop doing it rather fast. Because they go out of business.

As Nancy mentioned, they have different economic models in France. They know you are going to sit the entire night, or maybe just turn the table once. They have to live with the nationally mandated 32-hour work week, and the fact that waiters are salaried rather than getting their money from tips.

This money doesn't come out of the owner's profits, it comes out of the diner's pocket. These costs of doing business are built into the menu prices.

It is true that Europe has a very different dining culture than we do. But you either make money doing business, or you don't have a business very long.

[shogun]

And we're back to the beginning again. If Ray's is doing it for love, why do they kick your tush to the curb after 90 minutes?

Have to spread the love around a little, too. One cannot love but 45 a night!

[deangold]

Not to defend the total assholes out there, but isn't one of the characteristics of "family style restaurants featuring simply prepared dishes from local ingredients along with reasonably priced and really good wines," a certain relaxed and lingering quality to the meal?  I haven't travelled in Italy, but in France and Greece, there's definitely "leaving so soon? What's wrong" feeling to a lot of restaurants.  In Greece, it's not uncommon for restaurants to send out a round of gratis digestifs just as you're winding down, as if to say "y'all come back."

It all depends on the type of restaurant you are in. In Firenze, if you go to the restaurant at Cibreo, the table on th late seating is yours for the night. If you go to the Trattoria, you are presented you bill and expected to get up and go when your meal is complete. Of course the pricing is much lower in the Trattoria. I would hate to see what would happen at Mario or Casalinga if you just stayed at your table without ordering more food at lunch time on the earlier turns.

Again, Italy has a much different system overall. The waiters are not dependent on their tips for their income. They are paid a wage and their health care is paid for by the state. Not good or bad, just the way it is. In iItaly, the renovation of an old building into a restaurant is often heavily subsidized by the government.

No, I have never put a hard limit on dining except when someone asks to be "squeezed in" when I tell them I don't have their time available. If I take your reservation at 6:30 saying I need your table back at 8:30, I think that I should be able to expect you to follow thru. But if you don't, I won't send out any "goons" to make mincemeat of you. Since we have opened, I think that maybe 4 times have I taked to a table about needing their table back. I am sure they are all pissed at me but the folk waiting for the table would have been pissed as well. Its a balancing act.

We seat people right up to closing, we let them finish their meals in peace. On slow nights we don't care if you and your dining companions have an orgy on the table (well if you're by the window we might be concerned about nosey neighbors.

On busy nights we figue 2to2-1/2 hours for a table. When a table stays for 3 or 4 hours on the first turn, it is hard to deal with. We are a casual restaurant with an average check on the south side of $40.00 a person. We are not a coffee shop, a chain nor a fine dining temple. All restaurants are businesses and all I am suggesting is that diners could be a little sensitive on a Friday or Saturday night taking up a table at prime hours for hours after they finish their meals.

[johnb]

It all depends on the type of restaurant you are in.  In Firenze, if you go to the restaurant at Cibreo, the table on th late seating is yours for the night.  If you go to the Trattoria, you are presented you bill and expected to get up and go when your meal is complete.  Of course the pricing is much lower in the Trattoria.  I would hate to see what would happen at Mario or Casalinga if you just stayed at your table without ordering more food at lunch time on the earlier turns. 

As I have read through this thread this afternoon, I am stuck by some of the comments made by the "sophisticated" users of this board (forgive me, but somebody used that term earlier today). Folks, there is one and only one prime reason to be in business, and that is to make money. I don't care if you're a restaurant in DC, a trattoria in Genoa, or a dry cleaner in Tokyo, you have to make money (have a strong positive cash flow). If you also love what you do that's great, and I hope most business owners do love what they do. But I'm sorry, love is no substitute for feeding your family. You MUST make money or you're dead. And I would point out that it is also in the diner's interest that the restaurant be profitable, because, as others have noted, otherwise it won't be there long. The only other way is (1) to receive some sort of direct or indirect subsidy (which after all is just another form of revenue/cost forgiveness) which maybe is what happens in "food culture" countries such as France (I don't know) or (2) make it up out of your own pocket. I'd like to have a show of hands of restaurant owners who love it so much they are willingly subsidizing it out of their own pockets. Drug fronts don't count.

It is difficult to imagine anyone who has had a business could believe anyone could do it just for love, not income. My SO and I have a part-time B&B business. She loved the B&B idea, all the frou frou etc. (this is a peculiar affliction of women, but I digress). She learned quick that love doesn't go far when there are bills to pay and you have to put up with the crazy guests (very much in the minority thankfully, but memorable). And the crazyness we put up with is a tiny fraction of what any restaurant deals with.

[Jonathan]

I understand both sides, however I think in other parts of the world it's not really about the profit.  I can only think of a few places that I have visited that are doing it for the love in DC. They would be; Komi, Rays the Steak, Colorado kitchen and Two Amys to name a few.

this statement seems to be so incredibly unfounded. how do you know who does what for what motivation?

and secondly, do you know how much money 2 amy's makes? lots. lots and lots. whether or not they do it for profit i do not know. but i do know they make a lot of profit.

[mame11]

Ideally in life we should find a career that allows us to do what we love and make money. To own and operate a restaurant seems to require a love beyond what most of us know in our careers for what you do. I am too tired to articulate beyond this but I imagine anybody who has ever opened a restaurant does it with a whole bunch of LOVE because its a rough rough world out there.

I think many diners are rude and incosiderate when it comes to table turnover. Not only do I feel for the restaurant owner and server but sometimes just sometimes I feel for me as a patron who is waiting an unreasonable time to eat.

But I don't blame restaurants for their popularity and that is what blows my mind about the whole WaPo thing with Ray's.

I remember years ago someone opened a restaurant near my hometown that got a lot of press in both the local daily paper and a national magazine or two. People would drive an hour to go to the restaurant and have to wait a l-o-n-g time to be seated. Eventually the local daily paper started writing negative pieces about the place. I finally got to go at that point because the crowds had died down. The food sure was good.

[Craig Erion]

It's not difficult for me to imagine.

oh my good lord, I thought I was a big kid. Congrats to the Clarks!

[Spiral Stairs]

It is a vast oversimplification to say that a restaurateur (or any other employed person) does it either "for love" or "for the money." Like all of us, restaurant owners must balance their need for money and their desire to have a job they love. Maybe some restaurateurs have struck a balance weighted more heavily "for love" than some other people, but that doesn't mean they're not in it "for the money" too. Likewise, a restaurateur who wants to have two seatings per night because he or she has a mortgage payment to make has not abandoned all "love" in favor of profit.

A restaurateur who does it solely "for love" could, for instance, decide to abandon all profit margin above a bare living wage. Just like I could tell my employer, "I appreciate your offer to pay me this fat salary, but I only need half of this to live on, and I'm not doing it for the money, so you can keep the other half, thank you very much." But I don't do that, and restaurateurs seek to increase their profit margins, because we all share a material world in which money matters.

In other threads, people have argued that financial success in the restaurant industry is so difficult to achieve, and so meager in potential scope, that the only rational reason to enter it is "for love."

Both positions are romanticizations of decisions that regular people -- like restaurateurs -- make every day.

[Nadya]

The idea that some restaurateurs do it for money and some for love is quite daft. Perhaps Chez Vincent, a colorful bistro at let's say, a tiny but chic French Riviera town does not come across as madly efficient as, let's say, Morton's of Chicago outpost. It still doesn't exempt Mssr. Vincent from the need to buy produce, pay staff, replace linens, hire cleaners, and take home enough jambone to make Mme Vincent happy. You may be left with an impression of relaxed hospitality of people who don't care when you leave, but it's really quite misguided to think that the entire dining experience in ANY restaurant hasn't been carefully planned to make the bottom line attractive.

That is, of course, assuming Mssr. Vincent plans to remain in business and doesn't just want to blow through the massive inheritance of his Grand Tante Rottschild, nee Vincent.

[DLB]

this statement seems to be so incredibly unfounded. how do you know who does what for what motivation?

and secondly, do you know how much money 2 amy's makes? lots. lots and lots. whether or not they do it for profit i do not know. but i do know they make a lot of profit.

How would you know how much money 2 Amy's is making? Are you managing the books? Look folks this was just my opinion. I can assure you that most of the locally owned restaurants, some of which I mentioned above did not open a restaurant to get rich. These people LOVE food ,LOVE serving the community and LOVE offering a quality product. If you happen to make a little money along the way, that's even better.

[Nadya]

How would you know how much money 2 Amy's is making? Are you managing the books? Look folks this was just my opinion. I can assure you that most of the locally owned restaurants, some of which I mentioned above did not open a restaurant to get rich. These people LOVE food ,LOVE serving the community and LOVE offering a quality product. If you happen to make a little money along the way, that's even better.

I don't think anyone here is making an argument that opening a restaurant is some quick-rich scheme. The point people like myself are trying to make is that regardless of how much you love food, serving the community, preparing a quality product and displaying warm cuddly teddy bears on your dining room shelves, everyone, every single restaurateur going into business has, or should have, a business plan that produces a bottom line.

Do you think the locally owned restaurants you enjoy so much just took a loan out and winged it on "let's see if we can make this work" basis?

Of course chefs and restaurateurs have to love what they do, and if they wanted to get rich, they probably would have opened a liquor store. The failure rates are staggering and the perils of this work are too hard to take if you don't feel passionate about your business. The point is that the passion one feels for one's work does not at all negate the need for a business model. Perhaps they are not in it to make a massive amount of money, but they are not in it to lose money either.

Imagine Mssr. Vincent from Chez Vincent saying to his produce supplier:

"Hey Luke, I want three cases of the best peaches you have because I want to make my peach melbas as brilliant as possible. Imagine how happy my customers will be! And if I happen to be able to pay you next month along the way, hey, that's even better."

Or to his hostess:

"Hey Nadya, I want you to come work for me three nights a week because I want to have the hottest and the most polished hostess in town who looks stunning in her black dress behind the host stand and answers the phone with just the right mix of sass, accent and reverence. Imagine how happy the clients will be! Won't you love this? And if I can pay you along the way, that's even better."

[DLB]

I don't think anyone here is making an argument that opening a restaurant is some quick-rich scheme.  The point people like myself are trying to make is that regardless of how much you love food, serving the community, preparing a quality product and displaying warm cuddly teddy bears on your dining room shelves, everyone, every single restaurateur going into business has, or should have, a business plan that produces a bottom line.

Please check my orignal post. I never said anything about not having a business model. I was simply stating the difference between my observations of the so call mom and pop places in France, where the table is yours for night, to that of these type places in the USA.

[Nadya]

Please check my orignal post. I never said anything about not having a business model. I was simply stating the difference between my observations of the so call mom and pop places in France, where the table is yours for night, to that of these type places in the USA.

I did check your post. It said this:

"I understand both sides, however I think in other parts of the world it's not really about the profit...They gave you time to enjoy the meal and your wine without feeling rushed between your courses. Our Counrty is different, most people don't have the time to take 4 hrs for dinner, and most restaurants are trying to turn a profit.

In Paris most Restaurnts are doing it for the love not profit. I can only think of a few places that I have visited that are doing it for the love in DC..."

My reaction to this was that ALL restaurants are doing it for profit, or should be, and that love is, or should be, a necessary element of this equation. Even the restaurants you enjoyed in Paris are trying to turn a profit. It may just not be very noticeable to diners, but the profit margin is built into everything you enjoy there, including an unhurried dinner. If I misunderstood your point, I apologize.

[DLB]

  It may just not be very noticeable to diners, but the profit margin is built into everything you enjoy there, including an unhurried dinner.

This a good point

[Waitman]

How would you know how much money 2 Amy's is making? Are you managing the books? Look folks this was just my opinion. I can assure you that most of the locally owned restaurants, some of which I mentioned above did not open a restaurant to get rich. These people LOVE food ,LOVE serving the community and LOVE offering a quality product. If you happen to make a little money along the way, that's even better.

Given that Pastan is up to what, four(?) restaurants (Obelisk, two Paradisos and 2 Amy's), I'd suggest that it's possible that the profit motive looms a little larger now than it did than it back when he was the young stud with the hot restaurant on the block. I seem to recall an article a few years back about Pastan and Ann Cashion going in on the first Pizzaria Paradiso because they weren't making enough money on their fine dining places - you get old, your knees start to go, there's kids, you decide to take a vacation for the first time in years, so you decide to pull in a little cash with a quality -- but crassly commercial -- venture. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm sure Pastan (like Jose Andres and Buben and Weidemayer [soon] and all the other empire builders) loves food and is devoted to his customers. But the suggestion that he's out there adding another restaurant and a few more grey hairs because he's not putting enough LOVE and great food into the community is fairly laughable.

Not that it makes any difference. The proof of the pizza is in the eating, as they saying goes, and Pastan's is pretty good. But I would no more dash out of 2 Amy's after dining to protect his profit margins than I would pay extra for a car so that Ford and the floor salesman could make more money.

And, for the record, I don't care if the customers are lined up into the Giant Food, where they're turning over snack-food displays and throwing produce, I may just linger a minute or two -- not forever, mind you -- over one last glass of wine and a crumb of cheese. I'm not eating, I'm dining.

[Principia]

..Even the restaurants you enjoyed in Paris are trying to turn a profit.  It may just not be very noticeable to diners, but the profit margin is built into everything you enjoy there, including an unhurried dinner...

I would imagine this consideration includes making everything twice as expensive in order to accommodate the fact that one's clientele are going to spend the entire evening lolling around the restaurant long after they're done with their meal?

[DLB]

Given that Pastan is up to what, four(?) restaurants (Obelisk, two Paradisos and 2 Amy's), I'd suggest that it's possible that the profit motive looms a little larger now than it did than it back when he was the young stud with the hot restaurant on the block.  I seem to recall an article a few years back about Pastan and Ann Cashion going in on the first Pizzaria Paradiso because they weren't making enough money on their fine dining places - you get old, your knees start to go, there's kids, you decide to take a vacation for the first time in years, so you decide to pull in a little cash with a quality -- but crassly commercial -- venture.  Nothing wrong with that. 

I'm sure Pastan (like Jose Andres and Buben and Weidemayer [soon] and all the other empire builders) loves food and is devoted to his customers.  But the suggestion that he's out there adding another restaurant and a few more grey hairs because he's not putting enough LOVE and great food into the community is fairly laughable.

Not that it makes any difference.  The proof of the pizza is in the eating, as they saying goes, and Pastan's is pretty good.  But I would no more dash out of 2 Amy's after dining to protect his profit margins than I would pay extra for a car so that Ford and the floor salesman could make more money. 

And, for the record, I don't care if the customers are lined up into the Giant Food, where they're turning over snack-food displays and throwing produce, I may just linger a minute or two -- not forever, mind you -- over one last glass of wine and a crumb of cheese.  I'm not eating, I'm dining.

I think for anyone to suggest they know what the profit margins are for any restaraunt unless you are looking at the books is laughable. There is no way for you to know that.

[johnb]

I think for anyone to suggest they know what the profit margins are for any restaraunt unless you are looking at the books is laughable. There is no way for you to know that.

Someone who has not seen the books may not know the precise number, but it is not so difficult for someone in the business to get a pretty good idea from the evidence at hand. How busy is the place, how many places has the guy opened, what are his prices relative to his food costs, what sort of house does he live in, car does he drive, difficulty does he have getting financing for his next place, etc. etc. In short, outside of a specific figure, someone in the business certainly can figure that out pretty close if he wants to.

It's a small industry. Word gets around.

[Waitman]

I think for anyone to suggest they know what the profit margins are for any restaraunt unless you are looking at the books is laughable. There is no way for you to know that.

I assume you go through life understanding nothing but what you find on a spreadsheet?

A restaurant, run by a successful industry veteran, with a line out the door, is a profitable place. And -- let's be clear on this -- nobody opens and runs a third business unless they intend to make money. Life is otherise too damn short.

[Jonathan]

by the way, pastan does not own either of the pizzeria paradiso's. he only owns obelisk and 2 amys.

2 amys is extremely successful.

[DLB]

I assume you go through life understanding nothing but what you find on a spreadsheet? 

A restaurant, run by a successful industry veteran, with a line out the door, is a profitable place.  And -- let's be clear on this -- nobody opens and runs a third business unless they intend to make money.  Life is otherise too damn short.

A Line out the door does not equal profit. Actually a Profit and Loss statement gives you a snap shot of what a company is doing, not a line. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I am moving on

[Dave Pressley]

When the table isn't needed, is lingering or turning to business after eating also frowned upon by you proprieters and servers?

Not at all. We..at least, most of us...are in the business to please the guest and provide a great experience. We get mostly anxious at tables that linger on busier nights because it is ruining the experience of the group (or couple) of people behind them BEFORE they even sit down! We, as the restaurant management, often have to kiss some MAJOR booty and/or buy food/drinks to make sure that the 2nd seating isn't completely pissed off BEFORE they ever see a menu. Even then, most people would be a little miffed, even if you compensate them.

If I make an 8:30 reservation somewhere, I want to sit before 8:45. I don't feel like waiting on the idiots who were seated at 5:30 and decided to chill at their table after eating like it was their local Starbucks.

To answer your question...if there is not a wait for your table, sit there all f***ing night. We appreciate your business and hope you had a great night. No harm, no foul. (Servers may not share my sentiment as they are denied less revenue if you occupy a table in their section all night without any extra gratuity. Different perspective from any servers would be appreciated, I'm sure.)

After a particularly long and somewhat expensive lunch in Madrid, we were one of only two tables left in the place. The owner sent us out a bottle of house-made limoncello and a plate of ice cream treats. When we thanked him, he said he was delighted to do that for folks who enjoyed his restaurant so much that they would linger.

That owner also had a "siesta" that afternoon, I'm sure. We Americans work all day long and in many cases, on through the night, getting up to 11-16 hour shifts as a normal. We're tired at the end of the dinner shift and want you to leave when you're the only table left in the restaurant. So do our busboys, dishwashers and waiters. We;re tired. Give the late night people a break, here.

"Y'all don't have to go home, but 'cha can't stay here."

I have sinned.  I have dined and worried only about my own pleasure and, perhaps, whether the Barolo went with the veal.

From now on, I will keep uppermost in my mind the owner's profit margin and the waiter's sense of self worth; I will eat as fast as possible, so that my fellow diners will not be inconvenienced by my existance and, if I have a complaint, I will get a signed note from the manager that I discussed it immediately and at length, giving him a chance to make it right, but not shaking him down for a freebie, before I even consider posting anything on line. 

I promise to become worthy.

Do unto others...right??

Are you sure Waitman is an appropriate name for you? Maybe WaitForMeToFinishMyBaroloMan works better?

Basically, as with the reservations (no-show) controversy some weeks back, I'm guessing it's a small number of diners who are ruining it for the rest of us.

It's a small number as compared to the number of diners who post online at donrockwell.com. Definitely not a small number overall, though. Trust me.

[Waitman]

by the way, pastan does not own either of the pizzeria paradiso's. he only owns obelisk and 2 amys.

2 amys is extremely successful.

My bad. But he was one of the founders of the original Paradiso.

[johnb]

A Line out the door does not equal profit. Actually a Profit and Loss statement gives you a snap shot of what a company is doing, not a line. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I am moving on

It's a good idea for you to move on on this one. Your original statement was that, without seeing an actual profit and loss statement, it is impossible for an outsider to know whether a restaurant is profitable. That is totally wrong, and anyone who thinks such a thing ought to tread very lightly when commenting on business matters.

[DonRocks]

It's a good idea for you to move on on this one.  Your original statement was that, without seeing an actual profit and loss statement, it is impossible for an outsider to know whether a restaurant is profitable.  That is totally wrong, and anyone who thinks such a thing ought to tread very lightly when commenting on business matters.

[it's a good idea for both of you to move on on this one. ]

[Drive-by Critic]

I'd like to ask a question that seems pertinent to this thread.

We are not campers, in part because I find most restaurants too noisy for conversation and relaxation, and in part because it isn't right to overstay our welcome.

However, I do like to have an after-dinner drink or dessert. More often than not, the waiter never asks if we'd like to have one or the other. The waiter just brings the check.

That makes me feel awkward. Should I ask to see the dessert menu (did he get a call from my mother telling him that I don't "need" that dessert?)? Am I inconveniencing him by ordering an after-dinner drink, and forcing him to re-total the check? Or do they think that the extra tip they would get from the slightly larger bill isn't as much as they would get from turning the table over? All I know is that it can mar a very nice meal to feel that the waiter has determined that I should eat or drink no more...

I would be very interested to know how the restaurant owners feel about this. Do they know that their waiters are doing this?

Ellen

[DaveBVI]

However, I do like to have an after-dinner drink or dessert. More often than not, the waiter never asks if we'd like to have one or the other. The waiter just brings the check.

That makes me feel awkward. Should I ask to see the dessert menu (did he get a call from my mother telling him that I don't "need" that dessert?)?

I would be very interested to know how the restaurant owners feel about this. Do they know that their waiters are doing this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, guess you should eat at nicer places

Actually, most places train their servers to offer dessert, coffee, drinks, etc. Since you are already there, and no extra tables/waits are involved, it helps the place make more money, and the waiter makes more also. Don't feel bad at all asking for dessert or coffee, and if the waiter dosen't want to re-total the check, then he is a schmuck, and you should te-calculate your tip.

Smiles and giggles

"Free-agent" Dave

[Audrey2025]

Happy Wednesday, everybody!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030801265.html

[Camille-Beau]

Washington, D.C.: Who is the dude that seems to make the rounds every night (and maybe daytimes too?), visiting seemingly every restaurant and bar from Dupont Circle, to Logan Circle, to U Street, and others in that neck of the woods? We see him all the time, coming in, hanging with a manager or bartender for a few minutes, and moving on.

Any story there?

Tom Sietsema: I have no idea who you're talking about. Can you give me a better description, please?

The only "dude" that comes to mind is Ashok Bajaj, the owner of Ardeo, Bardeo, Oval Room, Bombay Club, Rasika and 701. He somehow manages to make appearances at each place every night. But his restaurants aren't in the neighborhoods you mention.

Is it you Rocks?

[qwertyy]

Is this the fellow, always in a somewhat tattered suit, usually carrying a large newspaper under his arm? If so, I met him once, but I can't remember his name. Nice fella.

[Principia]

Is it you Rocks? 

I was thinking Jacques, but perhaps our mysterious bon vivant might choose to reveal themselves instead of leaving us to guess?

[crackers]

Is this the fellow, always in a somewhat tattered suit, usually carrying a large newspaper under his arm?

I was thinking Jacques

Tattered suit, hanging out at every bar on U Street and Logan Circle - definitely not JG in this lifetime.

[Waitman]

I know exactly who this guy is. He's been hanging out, always alone, along the Dupont-Logan axis for at least a decade, is a little bit off-kilter though polite and friendly enough, looks very presentable for someone who seems to wear the same suit every day (though the suit changes over the years), and needs a friend.

[Heather]

I know exactly who this guy is.  He's been hanging out, always alone, along the Dupont-Logan axis for at least a decade, is a little bit off-kilter though polite and friendly enough, looks very presentable for someone who seems to wear the same suit every day (though the suit changes over the years), and needs a friend.

If he's short, with dark hair I knew him years ago at Montgomery College. Can't remember his name though. He is, or was, a writer with some family money. And a bit crazy.

[Waitman]

If he's short, with dark hair I knew him years ago at Montgomery College.  Can't remember his name though.  He is, or was, a writer with some family money.  And a bit crazy.

That's the guy. Has a bit of a limp.

[Mrs. B]

I know exactly who this guy is.  He's been hanging out, always alone, along the Dupont-Logan axis for at least a decade, is a little bit off-kilter though polite and friendly enough, looks very presentable for someone who seems to wear the same suit every day (though the suit changes over the years), and needs a friend.

I've chatted with him before and he is a bit off kilter but not scarily so. He's always struck me as a lost puppy. I've seen him around for at least 18 years (yes I'm old) and remember his burnt-orange suit from the 80's most vividly.