3 ms·

"Running half a restaurant with full overhead?" Why would you assume that they would have full overhead upon re-opening?

hobs 6y ago
Because rent, lights, and staff need to be around the full shift.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  What does this mean?
  - Exmoor 6y ago
    If you pay rent on your building you pay the same rate all the time, even if you're not open. If you open up, the cost of powering your appliances, lighting, heating, etc. is all essentially the same whether or not you feeding 100 people a day or 1000.
    - _curious_ 6y ago
      "If you pay rent on your building you pay the same rate all the time, even if you're not open." You are correct that the rate is constant, but it can be constantly low to the point that it's feasible to only be open during select hours/times. Plenty of restaurants are only open for one course each day, say breakfast or dinner. And in the future, when it comes to 'reopening' - many restaurants which were previously 'full service' will have no choice but to scale back and start small again. "If you open up, the cost of powering your appliances, lighting, heating, etc. is all essentially the same whether or not you feeding 100 people a day or 1000." It is not essentially the same at all. These are variable energy costs than can and will fluctuate based on usage tied to controls such as hours of operation and number of customers served during said time. Obvious examples are gas as a cooking source that varies a lot depending on whether cooking for 100 or 1,000. Others, like electrical, can vary based on which physical sections of a restaurant are open (or not). On a slow day, it's not uncommon for a portion of an establishment to be closed off to conserve energy resources like HVAC.
save_ferris 6y ago
It’s harder for restaurants to drastically reduce overhead because major expenses like rent and utilities tend to be fixed.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  No question it's harder - it's not about subjective states like harder vs easier...
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    Most service establishments operate on razor thin margins that sustain only on regular business activity, so being forced to pay the same amount of rent while doing only half of one’s normal business is not typically feasible. I’m not really sure what is subjective about that.
    - _curious_ 6y ago
      That is assuming they are paying the same amount of rent, which they likely will not be, at least for some period of time. And what's subjective are these concepts like "hard" or "easy" - a lease agreement is definitely an objective instrument by design.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Big assembly-line restaurants don't work with half the kitchen staff missing. Little diners can't hire half a cook. There is some wiggle room. Fewer waitstaff, but they're the least paid anyway. So maybe not full overhead, but near enough to make no difference.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  "Big assembly-line restaurants don't work with half the kitchen staff missing." Sure they can, I've experienced it firsthand circa 2007-2009. "Little diners can't hire half a cook." In the 'little diner' scenario, often times the host is the server is the cook is the owner - sometimes its equivalent to 25% cook. "There is some wiggle room. Fewer waitstaff, but they're the least paid anyway. So maybe not full overhead, but near enough to make no difference." There's double-digit wiggle room. I'm not suggesting that any of the above is ideal or easy, but it can and will be done by those who want to succeed given the opportunity. Some Restaurateurs are among the best entrepreneurs around.

hobs 6y ago

Because rent, lights, and staff need to be around the full shift.

_curious_ 6y ago
What does this mean?
- Exmoor 6y ago
  If you pay rent on your building you pay the same rate all the time, even if you're not open. If you open up, the cost of powering your appliances, lighting, heating, etc. is all essentially the same whether or not you feeding 100 people a day or 1000.
  - _curious_ 6y ago
    "If you pay rent on your building you pay the same rate all the time, even if you're not open." You are correct that the rate is constant, but it can be constantly low to the point that it's feasible to only be open during select hours/times. Plenty of restaurants are only open for one course each day, say breakfast or dinner. And in the future, when it comes to 'reopening' - many restaurants which were previously 'full service' will have no choice but to scale back and start small again. "If you open up, the cost of powering your appliances, lighting, heating, etc. is all essentially the same whether or not you feeding 100 people a day or 1000." It is not essentially the same at all. These are variable energy costs than can and will fluctuate based on usage tied to controls such as hours of operation and number of customers served during said time. Obvious examples are gas as a cooking source that varies a lot depending on whether cooking for 100 or 1,000. Others, like electrical, can vary based on which physical sections of a restaurant are open (or not). On a slow day, it's not uncommon for a portion of an establishment to be closed off to conserve energy resources like HVAC.

save_ferris 6y ago

It’s harder for restaurants to drastically reduce overhead because major expenses like rent and utilities tend to be fixed.

_curious_ 6y ago
No question it's harder - it's not about subjective states like harder vs easier...
- save_ferris 6y ago
  Most service establishments operate on razor thin margins that sustain only on regular business activity, so being forced to pay the same amount of rent while doing only half of one’s normal business is not typically feasible. I’m not really sure what is subjective about that.
  - _curious_ 6y ago
    That is assuming they are paying the same amount of rent, which they likely will not be, at least for some period of time. And what's subjective are these concepts like "hard" or "easy" - a lease agreement is definitely an objective instrument by design.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Big assembly-line restaurants don't work with half the kitchen staff missing. Little diners can't hire half a cook. There is some wiggle room. Fewer waitstaff, but they're the least paid anyway. So maybe not full overhead, but near enough to make no difference.

_curious_ 6y ago
"Big assembly-line restaurants don't work with half the kitchen staff missing." Sure they can, I've experienced it firsthand circa 2007-2009. "Little diners can't hire half a cook." In the 'little diner' scenario, often times the host is the server is the cook is the owner - sometimes its equivalent to 25% cook. "There is some wiggle room. Fewer waitstaff, but they're the least paid anyway. So maybe not full overhead, but near enough to make no difference." There's double-digit wiggle room. I'm not suggesting that any of the above is ideal or easy, but it can and will be done by those who want to succeed given the opportunity. Some Restaurateurs are among the best entrepreneurs around.