How bad is new J from HKG to JFK?
Sep 18, 2009, 3:57 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Programs: JAL Global Club & oneworld Sapphire, ANA SFC & Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 3,746
How bad is new J from HKG to JFK?
Allow me to provide quick context for this question: I am flying NRT to JFK soon, but my company is strongly encouraging cost-cutting, and I have a choice of going via HKG which would save $4,500 over the nonstop J fare on JL. (JL is $9,000, CX is $4,500 via a consolidator.)
But when I think of spending 15-17 hours on a CX flight, I shudder. I know the seats are flat, but I've seen so many criticisms of the new seats here on FT, and the photos do make them look quite claustrophobic.
I might be able to get approval for the JL flight, but in the current climate I would feel guilty spending that much money...
Many thanks for your thoughts!
But when I think of spending 15-17 hours on a CX flight, I shudder. I know the seats are flat, but I've seen so many criticisms of the new seats here on FT, and the photos do make them look quite claustrophobic.
I might be able to get approval for the JL flight, but in the current climate I would feel guilty spending that much money...
Many thanks for your thoughts!
Sep 18, 2009, 4:05 am
#2
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,539
Allow me to provide quick context for this question: I am flying NRT to JFK soon, but my company is strongly encouraging cost-cutting, and I have a choice of going via HKG which would save $4,500 over the nonstop J fare on JL. (JL is $9,000, CX is $4,500 via a consolidator.)
But when I think of spending 15-17 hours on a CX flight, I shudder. I know the seats are flat, but I've seen so many criticisms of the new seats here on FT, and the photos do make them look quite claustrophobic.
I might be able to get approval for the JL flight, but in the current climate I would feel guilty spending that much money...
Many thanks for your thoughts!
But when I think of spending 15-17 hours on a CX flight, I shudder. I know the seats are flat, but I've seen so many criticisms of the new seats here on FT, and the photos do make them look quite claustrophobic.
I might be able to get approval for the JL flight, but in the current climate I would feel guilty spending that much money...
Many thanks for your thoughts!
Only thing re CX is that I wasn't all THAT impressed with the lounge, though I'll admit I'm a sucker for the curry in the F lounge at NRT (JL).
Sep 18, 2009, 4:09 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,780
As oneworld emerald you'll still be able to use the jal lounge which is great at nrt.
CX seat is not good mostly if you're large or travelling with someone. Otherwise since you are comparing a flat seat to jal slant seat, the cx seat is better.
CX seat is not good mostly if you're large or travelling with someone. Otherwise since you are comparing a flat seat to jal slant seat, the cx seat is better.
Sep 18, 2009, 4:54 am
#5
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: HKG/TPE/LHR/NYC/SIN
Programs: BR Diamond, ROP Gold, CX Silver, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 68
When I travel on business, I find that CX J is the ideal seat. I love the privacy (for work and for shut eyes) and the AVOD in-flight entertainment system rocks. Do give CX new J a try and see if you like it. Personally, with the price being so much cheaper than JL, a no brainer for me ...
Last edited by flyerfly; Sep 18, 2009 at 4:57 am Reason: correct typo ...
Sep 18, 2009, 6:04 am
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Programs: JAL Global Club & oneworld Sapphire, ANA SFC & Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 3,746
Wow, so far the feedback has been immediate and unanimous: CX > JL. Since I am neither large nor traveling with a companion, I guess I don't need to worry about the CX seat.
The only issue that remains is the length of the CX trip... NRT to JFK via HKG is 22-23 hours, compared to 13 hours on the nonstop JL flight. I've done many trans-Pacs but have never taken a trip that long. I'm slightly concerned about going insane somewhere between HKG and JFK...
The only issue that remains is the length of the CX trip... NRT to JFK via HKG is 22-23 hours, compared to 13 hours on the nonstop JL flight. I've done many trans-Pacs but have never taken a trip that long. I'm slightly concerned about going insane somewhere between HKG and JFK...
Sep 18, 2009, 6:40 am
#7
Join Date: Aug 2005
Programs: BA DL
Posts: 179
I take both JL and CX for JFK-PEK-JFK. CX wins hands down. As you note, for a NRT departure (rather than PEK) the problem is the length of the CX flight. It depends on the value of your time, but if you do go with CX I suggest the later departures from HKG (17:00) and JFK (14:55) to get some sleep.
Sep 18, 2009, 6:40 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boston, Jo'burg, HK
Programs: AA EXP, Hyatt Lifetime Diamond, CX Gold, Mrs. Pickles travels for free
Posts: 13,161
Wow, so far the feedback has been immediate and unanimous: CX > JL. Since I am neither large nor traveling with a companion, I guess I don't need to worry about the CX seat.
The only issue that remains is the length of the CX trip... NRT to JFK via HKG is 22-23 hours, compared to 13 hours on the nonstop JL flight. I've done many trans-Pacs but have never taken a trip that long. I'm slightly concerned about going insane somewhere between HKG and JFK...
The only issue that remains is the length of the CX trip... NRT to JFK via HKG is 22-23 hours, compared to 13 hours on the nonstop JL flight. I've done many trans-Pacs but have never taken a trip that long. I'm slightly concerned about going insane somewhere between HKG and JFK...
Sep 18, 2009, 7:17 am
#9
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: East Coast
Programs: UA Lifetime Gold, AA Lifetime Platinum, Delta PM, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,522
Take CX. I flew JFKNRT F (skysleeper solo) on JL and returned HKGJFK J on CX last month. Other than having fewer midflight snack options and slightly diminished service (F vs J), CX was the better of the two. Unless you are horizontally challenged, you'll be fine in the seat. I found it very comfortable, the IFE is top-notch, and there was no difficulty sleeping on one's side. I've also flown JL J and found that seat to be truly narrow with no privacy, at an uncomfortable angle, with IFE nowhere as good.
Only thing re CX is that I wasn't all THAT impressed with the lounge, though I'll admit I'm a sucker for the curry in the F lounge at NRT (JL).
Only thing re CX is that I wasn't all THAT impressed with the lounge, though I'll admit I'm a sucker for the curry in the F lounge at NRT (JL).
Sep 18, 2009, 7:34 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Little dot in Asia
Programs: AA-EP, TK-*G, HL-DM, HY-GLO, MR-LTP
Posts: 25,932
Allow me to provide quick context for this question: I am flying NRT to JFK soon, but my company is strongly encouraging cost-cutting, and I have a choice of going via HKG which would save $4,500 over the nonstop J fare on JL. (JL is $9,000, CX is $4,500 via a consolidator.)
But when I think of spending 15-17 hours on a CX flight, I shudder. I know the seats are flat, but I've seen so many criticisms of the new seats here on FT, and the photos do make them look quite claustrophobic.
I might be able to get approval for the JL flight, but in the current climate I would feel guilty spending that much money...
Many thanks for your thoughts!
But when I think of spending 15-17 hours on a CX flight, I shudder. I know the seats are flat, but I've seen so many criticisms of the new seats here on FT, and the photos do make them look quite claustrophobic.
I might be able to get approval for the JL flight, but in the current climate I would feel guilty spending that much money...
Many thanks for your thoughts!
Remember ex-Japan will always be more on JL than other airlines. In HKG, it will be the reverse. JL tix will be cheaper than CX tickets.
Sep 18, 2009, 8:03 am
#11
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,539
CX F. Didn't think it was all that, but in fairness I spend a lot of time at T5 in LHR so the comparison may not be fair.
Sep 18, 2009, 8:31 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Sep 18, 2009, 10:09 am
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Programs: JAL Global Club & oneworld Sapphire, ANA SFC & Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 3,746
If AA had a good J fare from NRT-JFK (even via ORD) I would probably choose them over CX just for the convenience (much as I dislike AA and other US airlines).
Sep 18, 2009, 11:22 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,562
Personally, I am not a huge fan of the NRT JL F lounge. I think it's fine, but nothing special. As for the food, it is not really to my liking, but I prefer more snack type food items than full hot meals. Honestly, I prefer the Admirals Club.
As for The Wing/Pier, maybe I'm getting jaded in my old age, or maybe I've just been through it too many times, but it doesn't excite me as much as it used to. I think it's time for CX to come up with a new lounge concept.
For my money, the QF F lounge in SYD (and I would expcet MEL, but I haven't been there yet) is the best Oneworld Lounge.
As for The Wing/Pier, maybe I'm getting jaded in my old age, or maybe I've just been through it too many times, but it doesn't excite me as much as it used to. I think it's time for CX to come up with a new lounge concept.
For my money, the QF F lounge in SYD (and I would expcet MEL, but I haven't been there yet) is the best Oneworld Lounge.