large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

onlyroz

Andypandyboy wrote: »

Because that way the restaurant is losing the cost of the tasting menu for those people who are still "tasting" it. If you want to eat it they want you to pay for it. It comes down to money obviously. A tasting menu is supposed to be an "event dinner".

So let's say that we went out in a group to a place that served a tasting menu, and we brought my dad along who only has half a stomach and wouldn't be able to eat even half the amount of food on offer. Surely it would be better to order him a small meal and then let him have the odd spoonful from other people's plates rather than forcing him to order (and therefore waste) more food than he could possibly manage?

I have never experienced a restaurant that had a problem with people who let others taste some of their meal. In-fact I am sure that Missbiggles said that this was common practice among her social circle (even to the extent of letting them share your cutlery too, which to me seems pretty bizarre, but ho hum).

silvercar

I've been trying to think of an analogy to splitting the bill equally, where everyone pays the same because it is the time out with friends/ the ambience of the restaurant/ the service/ the view etc (delete the ones that don't apply) rather than just what you consumed that should determine the cost.

The nearest I can get is a theme park, you don't pay less because you won't go on rollercoasters. Everyone pays the same to go in, you have a day out, you can choose which rides to take and which to miss out. Apply that to a restaurant situation and some people would be saying you should pay less because you don't like roller coasters.

silvercar

onlyroz wrote: »

So let's say that we went out in a group to a place that served a tasting menu, and we brought my dad along who only has half a stomach and wouldn't be able to eat even half the amount of food on offer. Surely it would be better to order him a small meal and then let him have the odd spoonful from other people's plates rather than forcing him to order (and therefore waste) more food than he could possibly manage?

I have never experienced a restaurant that had a problem with people who let others taste some of their meal. In-fact I am sure that Missbiggles said that this was common practice among her social circle (even to the extent of letting them share your cutlery too, which to me seems pretty bizarre, but ho hum).

I'm sure the restaurant would be accommodating to one diner with health conditions not participating. That aside, a tasting menu gives you small portions of lots of courses rather than a mammoth dinner.

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

So let's say that we went out in a group to a place that served a tasting menu, and we brought my dad along who only has half a stomach and wouldn't be able to eat even half the amount of food on offer. Surely it would be better to order him a small meal and then let him have the odd spoonful from other people's plates rather than forcing him to order (and therefore waste) more food than he could possibly manage?

I have never experienced a restaurant that had a problem with people who let others taste some of their meal. In-fact I am sure that Missbiggles said that this was common practice among her social circle (even to the extent of letting them share your cutlery too, which to me seems pretty bizarre, but ho hum).

Most restaurants have no issue with it except if it is the tasting menu. That is just how it works.

I imagine in the scenario you describe they would make allowances, but, in general, they make the stipulation that everyone orders the from the one menu.

It is clearly stated on the websites though so if someone doesn't want to partake then they would have to forgo the restaurant or the rest of the party would have to order A La Carte.

onlyroz

silvercar wrote: »

I've been trying to think of an analogy to splitting the bill equally, where everyone pays the same because it is the time out with friends/ the ambience of the restaurant/ the service/ the view etc (delete the ones that don't apply) rather than just what you consumed that should determine the cost.

The nearest I can get is a theme park, you don't pay less because you won't go on rollercoasters. Everyone pays the same to go in, you have a day out, you can choose which rides to take and which to miss out. Apply that to a restaurant situation and some people would be saying you should pay less because you don't like roller coasters.

I don't think that's a good analogy because there is a set fee to go in to a theme park, whereas there isn't a set fee for a restaurant.

Perhaps a better analogy would be going on holiday as a group, where one couple gets the honeymoon suite with sea views and another couple gets the small twin room round the back with a view of the bins - and then the honeymoon-suite couple pipes up with the suggestion that they split the bill equally because "it's all about the experience and not about the cost".

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

I don't think that's a good analogy because there is a set fee to go in to a theme park, whereas there isn't a set fee for a restaurant.

Perhaps a better analogy would be going on holiday as a group, where one couple gets the honeymoon suite with sea views and another couple gets the small twin room round the back with a view of the bins - and then the honeymoon-suite couple pipes up with the suggestion that they split the bill equally because "it's all about the experience and not about the cost".

How is that a better analogy? The amenities of the Honeymoon suite are only there for those in that room, they are not available for everyone. Whereas, in a restaurant the choice is there for all as it is at a theme park.

onlyroz

Andypandyboy wrote: »

How is that a better analogy? The amenities of the Honeymoon suite are only there for those in that room, they are not available for everyone. Whereas, in a restaurant the choice is there for all as it is at a theme park.

How is a choice of hotel rooms significantly different from a choice of dishes on a menu? You all get to enjoy the communal hotel facilities, or the restaurant "ambiance", but you get to individually choose a room or dish(es) that suit your preferences and wallet.

Georgiegirl256

Pollycat wrote: »

Let me see - Quaker oat-so-simple from £1 shop or £2 from Tesco?
Where I come from they call that a 'no-brainer'. :rotfl:
.

Don't know if it's the pots you eat? But they're on offer at pound land at the moment 4 for £1. Got an email about it so don't know if it's just an online offer as some of theirs often are?

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

How is a choice of hotel rooms significantly different from a choice of dishes on a menu? You all get to enjoy the communal hotel facilities, or the restaurant "ambiance", but you get to individually choose a room or dish(es) that suit your preferences and wallet.

But only two people have the choice of the amenities of the honeymoon suite or the best room in the house, the rest have to choose differently. In a restaurant anyone, one or all can choose the best cut/dish on the menu so the choice is open to all.Ditto the the theme park.

onlyroz

Andypandyboy wrote: »

But only two people have the choice of the amenities of the honeymoon suite or the best room in the house, the rest have to choose differently. In a restaurant anyone, one or all can choose the best cut/dish on the menu so the choice is open to all.Ditto the the theme park.

Are you being deliberately slow? The comparison is the hotel experience vs the restaurant experience.

1) The hotel experience: Two couples go on holiday together. They make separate room choices, and one chooses a luxury suite and the other chooses a small twin room. They spend a week at the hotel putting everything "on the tab", and both couples enjoy the communal facilities (pool, spa etc). At the end of the week the total bill comes to £1500. If they split the bill equally it would be £750 each, even though a fairer split might be £1000 and £500.

2) The restaurant experience: Two couples go out to dinner together. One couple eat three courses, drink a bottle of wine each, and have liqueur coffees at the end of the meal. The other couple have two courses and have soft drinks. The total bill comes to £150. If they split the bill equally it would be £75 each, even though a fairer split might be £150 and £50.

Please tell me why the two scenarios are so different from each other?