Restaurant Seating

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Gregory Morrow said:

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 "[censored]"...
naturally you'll catch a few other stinkers.... but no problemo, once a
week click on "Flush".

Sheldon

"Gregory Morrow"

Quoted message 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 said:

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 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message 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'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.

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snipped>

Quoted message 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'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 said:

jmcquown said:

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 said:

Gregory Morrow said:

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 "[censored]"...
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 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

(Curly Sue) said:

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 said:

Kate Connally said:

jmcquown said:

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 20º 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 said:

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 said:

Sheldon said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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