apparently the landing fees at EWR is a lot cheaper than JFK. therefore cost saving can be significant. Downside is EWR is United Hub so One World network might be limited. Well I guess they can always fly to ORD or LAX for connection to other US cities, so EWR looks more like point-to-point destination. And as some said, maybe this is targeted more for leisure travellers. I wouldn't be surprised if CX announce special CXholiday package and/or fanfare with rediculously cheap fares limited to EWR - well the marketing stunt will save them advertising fees.

I don't know if some poster think we live in 1990s or watched too much of Gordon Gekko regarding "taking limo/helicopters" to JFK from Manhatten... I haven't seen that for a while around me.

CX will not offer F to EWR

I think thery should do DFW. it is AA hub and people can literally connect to anywhere in US and also Canada and Mexico.

DFW area has a significant Asian population also.

Much agreed. Afterall, DFW is AA's own backyard, and why there is no direct service to such an important Asian gateway is questionable.

A while ago, there were rumors that AA wanted CX to fly DFW-HKG, just like QF flying DFW-SYD. I am going to guess that post-merger (if it happens), AA will be flying DFW-HKG on their own metal.

it will be stupid for AA to fly to HKG, simply have more costs and miss the chance of launching another Asian Destination that OW does not offer- they can just codeshare with CX and say flyo to Shanghai or Bangkok or Taipei instead from DFW- considering AA has limited aircraft most new ones are just replacing old ones

it like AA wanting to fly to Sydney- better QF fly it and thus AA automatically serves Sydney and can use its aircraft to fly to Seoul for example

also it means there is a net total more OW coverage transpacific!!

anyways mine is just from a passenger perspective

also if CX wants DFW AA will have to play safe considering the fact that CX is not close to Oneworld carriers at all and losing CX would be horrid for OW

some have suggested CX enter into a JL like partnership with AA- difference is CX is the healthiest airline in OW in terms of finances , not to mention on over 90% of routes CX flies on it is the dominant carrier and fights to keep it that way

EWR is a good choice

but I agree CX should try launch other US cities!!

I will reconsider all my linkages (credit card, frequent flyer, etc.) with United because of this!

So basically, CX will sort of be like BA with multiple frequencies to JFK and one flight to EWR. I'm not sure how many flights BA has to EWR and if F is offered. BA has 7 flights daily throughout the day to JFK on its own metal (not sure if its accurate) while CX has 4 with 1 flight via Vancouver, EK has 2 A380's to JFK and soon to come 1 77W via MXP. CX is king when it comes to frequency to Asia.

Yes, that's sort implied by my not saying EWR can support F?

yeah very few airlines , if any at all can beat CX on Asian frequencies!!

You forgot IAD (and PHX, ATL, BOS, etc etc etc)

Doesn't mean that CX (or the other airline in question) can profitably fill that F cabin with fare paying pax. As much as I'd like to think so, CX does not operate the F cabin solely to take pax on awards.

Tell me about all the AA flyers that fly BA when there is a YQ free option on AA (despite a connection, it's worth it.)
I also doubt that they lose money on awards but cover cost.

To be precise, there are 8 daily JFK flights and 2 daily EWR flights on BA metal (with F on EWR as well as JFK). Additionally there are the two LCY-JFK all-J flights.

speak for yourself but i would have taken CX out of EWR if they had F.

BA is set to introduce its new 787-8 to EWR in October without F cabin