Multiple Reservations

[Blue Heron]

I really hate it that a few of my favorite dinner restaurants in Seattle have a no reservations policy. It makes it really hard to plan a special meal there or invite others. As they are smallish places, the wait for a table can be long. I guess they just don't want or need to deal with the hassle of no shows, and with the things I have read on this thread about multiple reservations made and cancelled up to the last minute, I guess I can't blame them. They have found a way to deal with that problem that does not benefit the diner.

[Jaymes]

I do think there's a point....  making 100 reservations;

Ah ha - I think I've finally got it.

Four or five reservations that you cannot possibly keep is all right, but 100 is not.

So, it's a question of degree, not principle.

Of course, this DOES remind me a little of that old joke about the woman in the elevator who will sleep with the fellow for $1mil, but not five bucks. "What do you think I am?" "We've already established that, Madame, and now we're just haggling over the price."

Edited February 10, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[nerissa]

Your right FG....but i work from my heart, more than my head

Glenn...yes a moot point as i don't over book my place

Simon...OH to have a bar for people to wait at!

If I book a table for 8, show up btw 7:55 and 8, I would like to be able to sit down and begin eating by 8:30. If the restaurant can't seat me, but can put me at a nice spot where drunks are not falling over all themselves and ashing their ciggarrette into my salad, fine. However, usually there is no room at the bar, and you are supposed to crouch in a corner sipping from your drink, trying to stay out the way of the waiter who has 4 more tables than normal.

Why does this happen? Because restaurants often overbook in order to deal with the multiple reservation gamers.

[Fat Guy]

Why does this happen?  Because restaurants often overbook in order to deal with the multiple reservation gamers.

That's one reason. Another reason is that it's difficult to predict or control how long people will take to eat -- and especially to linger over their coffee. So even if you have a 1:1 reservation-to-table ratio and a total lack of no-shows, sometimes there will be delays unless you put strict time limits on the tables. I think most people would rather live with a chance of delay, though.

[nerissa]

I don't begrudge those who want to linger over coffee or that Bordeaux, as it is once of the pleasures of restaurant. But, sometimes, restaurants have no areas to sit and wait 15 minutes for a table, or areas where you are not in the way of the kitchen staff. I guess this should be posted on the pet peeves topic, huh?

[lizziee]

Another part of this multiple reservation issue is the fact that once you are known at a restaurant, become a regular diner, always either keep your reservation or cancel in a timely manner and show up on time, you receive favored status. This is obviously irksome to the first timer or occasional diner who wants a prime time reservation at a "hot" restaurant, but once you are known as reliable, you are rewarded for it.

Personally, I would much rather see credit card guarantees so these endless reservation games could be a thing of the past.

[Basildog]

What about the people who don't have a credit card??

[Fat Guy]

At this point all you need is a bank account and your bank card doubles as a credit/debit card. I know there are people without bank accounts, but they probably don't dine much at the restaurants we're talking about with regard to this policy. I'm also sure, if presented with a convincing caller, a reservationist could make an exception -- or not.

[Wilfrid]

I think there's universal agreement here about one thing, at least. If you can't fulfil a reservation, you should call the restaurant and cancel as soon as possible. Whatever your legal obligations, this is the decent thing to do. Secondly, I have noticed a consensus that it's not fair to make a bunch of advance reservations so that you can decide where you want to go at the last minute - even if you then cancel the others. The more widespread this practice, the harder it is for restaurants to fill their tables.

But is it always unethical to hold multiple reservations? I don't think I ever hold more than two, but that happens not infrequently. It's not done out of fickleness, or a self-indulgent need to put off decision-making to the last minute. It's usually because there's some uncertainty about the exact make-up of the dinner party, the number of guests and their identity. Who is coming might make a difference for restaurant preferences, and the number might make a difference to which restaurant can accommodate the party.

Am I being bad, or is this just normal? Indignant tirades welcomed and encouraged.

(admin edit note: this is the first post from a thread that was merged into the preexisting discussion of this issue)

Edited March 26, 2003 by Fat Guy (log)

[SobaAddict70]

I think we can agree that ethical sense varies with each individual person's sense.

That said, in my opinion, its unethical to have more than one reservation because its dishonest.

If in doubt as to the true size of the party in question, I recommend reserving at the upper end, allowing for last minute cancellations and change of plans. In general, its always easier to reduce the number of seatings than to add on. Then, if need be, when I confirm with the restaurant the day of, if the number has changed (and it usually does), I can then modify the number of seatings.

A recent dinner for two at Diwan initially started out as a table for nine. Ok, I reserved about a month in advance, on the premise that people often make plans in advance, this way there was more than adequate time to back off if something unexpected came up. When I confirmed with the restaurant that afternoon, I modified the number of seatings from nine to three. A really last minute cancellation ( ) forced it to two.

Kids, I don't recommend doing this at home.

But that's just me.

Soba

Edited March 25, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[tommy]

ghee, well it really depends on a lot of factors, now don't it.

places like the french laundry and nobu have people calling the day before and the day of dying to get in. not to mention walk-ins hoping for that lucky last minute cancelation. i have no problem with booking a nobu or french laundry knowing that i might have to cancel a few days before. no problem whatsoever. and i don't think they have a problem with that either.

however, some restaurants can be hurt by this practice.

my rule: if i feel it will hurt the restaurant, i won't do it. otherwise, why not.

note: it also helps, if you know there's a good chance that you're going to cancel the reservation, to make it under someone else's name.

[Gavin Jones]

ghee

Is that Plotnicki's Indian cousin?

[macrosan]

Am I being bad, or is this just normal?  Indignant tirades welcomed and encouraged. 

I can't find the :indignant tirade: smiley. Please help.

Wilfrid, you are being bad, but maybe not very bad. A reservation represents an intention. You cannot intend to dine at two restaurants at the same time, therefore at least one of your representations is incorrect. That is bad.

Claims that this is all part of restaurant life's rich pattern is no justification. If it's true, then if enough people broke the pattern, everyone would be happier.

[tommy]

A reservation represents an intention.

who says? where is that written? putting your made-up definition aside, i would say that wilfrid is *not* bad. at least not for that reason. sometimes. depending.

[Wilfrid]

Oh, I think we can agree as a starting point that I'm bad. But indeed: I get the impression people don't feel too strongly about this. From a purely selfish point of view, I balance the possibility that the restaurant will not re-sell the table against the possibility I will have nowhere to go for dinner, and guess where that comes out? I emphasize, I am not talking about last-minute cancellations - I don't see that it's worse for the restaurant I cancel than me having to cancel for another reason anyway (and what with baby sitters and all, that does happen) - does it matter to that restaurant that I have a reservation at another restaurant?

[macrosan]

A reservation represents an intention.

who says? where is that written? putting your made-up definition aside, i would say that wilfrid is *not* bad. at least not for that reason. sometimes. depending.

I just did. Look ! I wrote it down. That makes it legit, surely Apart from other considerations, anything that proves that Wilfrid is bad must surely be credible

[tommy]

it seems to me that if a restaurant, or the industry, was plagued with the problem of losing money to no-shows (what is it, a 20% industry-wide rate?), then they'd raise their prices to compensate, or at the very least pass that loss on to the consumer just like any other business. or how about a no-reservation policy? f*cking Olive Garden has a 2 hour wait most nights.

of course, it's clear that there's a point at which neither the industry nor the consumer can handle the loss, but what can i tell you.

welcome back, macrosan.

[lizziee]

We have discussed the issue of mutiple reservations on e-gullet numerous times. The most recent thread is here:

(admin edit note: threads have now been merged)

[Wilfrid]

Thanks for the link Lizziee.

I saw Pan stated on that thread the "intention" point very strongly - so strongly that I spotted the logical error. He talked about "reserving tables in places where you do not intend to eat ". No: that implies either "I am holding reservations at X and Y but do not intend to eat at X" or "I am holding reservations at X and Y but do not intend to eat at Y". Now, if either of those statements were true, I'd have cancelled that reservation and wouldn't be holding two. I do intend to eat at X or Y, I just don't know which, and it's clear from this analysis that that is not logically equivalent to not intending to dine at either X or Y.

Anyway, I don't mean to go over old ground again. I was just trying to get a feel for a situation other than no-shows or cancelling late or holding numerous reservations through indecisiveness.

[yvonne johnson]

Did G.E.M. Anscombe give this topic the serious consideration it warrants, I wonder?

[g.johnson]

Oh, I think we can agree as a starting point that I'm bad.

Good bad, but not evil.

[Stone]

A reservation represents an intention.

who says? where is that written? putting your made-up definition aside, i would say that wilfrid is *not* bad. at least not for that reason. sometimes. depending.

I just did. Look ! I wrote it down. That makes it legit, surely Apart from other considerations, anything that proves that Wilfrid is bad must surely be credible

So Jerry and Elaine to in to pick up their rental car:

Agent: I'm sorry, we have no mid-size available at the moment.

Jerry: I don't understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?

Agent: Yes, we do, unfortunately we ran out of cars.

Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the

reservation.

Agent: I know why we have reservations.

Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to

take the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation and

that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody

can just take them.

How would you feel if you showed up on Friday night and was told that they booked two reservations for your table and decided to give the table to a more attractive couple?

[macrosan]

How would you feel if you showed up on Friday night and was told that they booked two reservations for your table and decided to give the table to a more attractive couple?

Well as long as they really were a more attractive couple .....

Nope, I guess I'd just get on the phone to Wilfrid and tell him to come round to the restauarnt and beat the place up. After all, he is verrrry badddd ......

[Pan]

Thanks for the link Lizziee.

I saw Pan stated on that thread the "intention" point very strongly - so strongly that I spotted the logical error.  He talked about "reserving tables in places where you do not intend to eat ".  No: that implies either "I am holding reservations at X and Y but do not intend to eat at X" or "I am holding reservations at X and Y but do not intend to eat at Y".  Now, if either of those statements were true, I'd have cancelled that reservation and wouldn't be holding two.  I do intend to eat at X or Y, I just don't know which, and it's clear from this analysis that that is not logically equivalent to not intending to dine at either X or Y.

Here's what I wrote:

If I decide to make a second reservation, I cancel the first right after reserving the second. To me, reserving tables in places where you do not intend to eat is on the same order as promising to come to a limited-invitation party with the wine, not showing up, and not calling.

When I reserve the second restaurant, it's because I or/and the other members of my party have decided, for whatever reason, that the second restaurant fulfills our needs for that meal better than the first restaurant. It sounds like you are being indecisive when you're holding two reservations and are unsure about which restaurant to choose under the circumstances. So my recommendation under those circumstances is to talk to all the members of your party as soon as possible and figure out which restaurant suits your needs best, then cancel the other reservation immediately. It's all about consideration.

[tommy]

How would you feel if you showed up on Friday night and was told that they booked two reservations for your table and decided to give the table to a more attractive couple?

that couldn't possibly happen to me.

actually, i'm missing the point. are you talking about restaurants double booking a single table? that's not really what we're talking about here in my estimation.

canceling, even at the last minute, only hurts the restaurant if they were 100% booked, had to turn away reservations, and then ended up 95% booked because i didn't show up. if they weren't going to book 100% booked to begin with, i don't see how there's a problem. i'm sure someone will go on to say that the restaurant orders x amount of steaks assuming that they will be 100% booked, but if they do that, they're just plain stupid, as they should know that they'll get a 10% cancelation rate (or whatever the average is), due to illness, conflict in plans, or yeah, i suppose, someone canceling because a better offer came up. where's the problem?