UA or Cathay Pacific to HKG
Oct 17, 2017, 9:49 pm
#6
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: UA, Starwood, Priority Club, Hertz, Starbucks Gold Card
Posts: 3,952
UA actually offers a very competitive product vis-a-vis CX. I actually prefer the Polaris seat in comfort over CX's Cirrus seat, which is aging poorly.
CX nowadays is an ailing airline, and the huge decline in service, including catering, shows through.
CX nowadays is an ailing airline, and the huge decline in service, including catering, shows through.
Oct 17, 2017, 9:51 pm
#7
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
OP is talking about NYC-HKG which is a sCO 777 with 2-2-2 layout. SFO-HKG with the new 77W seat I would say could content.
Oct 17, 2017, 9:58 pm
#8
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: UA, Starwood, Priority Club, Hertz, Starbucks Gold Card
Posts: 3,952
Ok, good point. I'll contend that UA's Polaris catering has been better lately. On my last trip on CX (HKG-LAX, J), my entree selection was "kungpao shrimp" served with a plastic packet of chili paste.
OP, peruse the CX forum and see what CX regulars are saying about the cutbacks.
OP, peruse the CX forum and see what CX regulars are saying about the cutbacks.
Oct 17, 2017, 10:28 pm
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 311
Thanks for the advice. I sort of assumed folks would say "go for CX" -- but that assumption was based on a past reputation that may not reflect the current reality.
Of course, there are other options, aside from CX and UA, but it is much more efficient to take a nonstop flight and I believe the only nonstop options from NYC to HKG are UA or CX.
My return flight will be HKG-WAS, where I believe there is no nonstop flight. So that may open up some other options as well...
Of course, there are other options, aside from CX and UA, but it is much more efficient to take a nonstop flight and I believe the only nonstop options from NYC to HKG are UA or CX.
My return flight will be HKG-WAS, where I believe there is no nonstop flight. So that may open up some other options as well...
Oct 17, 2017, 10:32 pm
#10
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
OP not sure if you are looking at JFK or EWR, CX flies from both. My responses, and a letter grade, are below:
Lounges (CX A- (ex JFK), B+ (ex EWR), UA D)
at JFK you get the AA FC lounge, at EWR you get the BA lounge. Both are vastly better than the crappy UC club at EWR.
at HKG the CX lounge is great, makes the UC club look like a low grade slum (and it is actually not bad for a UC).
Seat: (CX B+, UA C-)
UA has non-direct aisle access 2-2-2 seating ex-EWR. Seats are last gen, 78" of pitch, little storage space.
cx direct aisle access 82" long, harringbone, lots of storage/space.
Drinks (CX B+, UA D)
UA has random wines that cost about $12-15 retail. No espresso drinks. ETOH is not great
CX has wines that cost about $25-30 retail, espresso drinks, better booze, port.
Food (CX B-, UA C-)
CX's food has gone down hill, but is still better than what UA serves. If you like Texas cafateria style food, UA is for you.
In flight sevice (CX A-, UA C-)
I have always found CX crew to be helpful and attentive, but not stuffy like the SQ/JAL/ANA service. UA, some great helpful crews, but you also may get someone who thinks they work for a diner, slopping down food before going to read a magazine. YMMV.
No one in their right minds would say take UA. The only reason to take UA is (a) you have a corporate deal with them so its a lot cheaper, or (b) you are trying to retain GS or hit some level in UA's program.
Lounges (CX A- (ex JFK), B+ (ex EWR), UA D)
at JFK you get the AA FC lounge, at EWR you get the BA lounge. Both are vastly better than the crappy UC club at EWR.
at HKG the CX lounge is great, makes the UC club look like a low grade slum (and it is actually not bad for a UC).
Seat: (CX B+, UA C-)
UA has non-direct aisle access 2-2-2 seating ex-EWR. Seats are last gen, 78" of pitch, little storage space.
cx direct aisle access 82" long, harringbone, lots of storage/space.
Drinks (CX B+, UA D)
UA has random wines that cost about $12-15 retail. No espresso drinks. ETOH is not great
CX has wines that cost about $25-30 retail, espresso drinks, better booze, port.
Food (CX B-, UA C-)
CX's food has gone down hill, but is still better than what UA serves. If you like Texas cafateria style food, UA is for you.
In flight sevice (CX A-, UA C-)
I have always found CX crew to be helpful and attentive, but not stuffy like the SQ/JAL/ANA service. UA, some great helpful crews, but you also may get someone who thinks they work for a diner, slopping down food before going to read a magazine. YMMV.
No one in their right minds would say take UA. The only reason to take UA is (a) you have a corporate deal with them so its a lot cheaper, or (b) you are trying to retain GS or hit some level in UA's program.
Oct 17, 2017, 10:44 pm
#12
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: UA GS ,QF Plat
Posts: 686
OP not sure if you are looking at JFK or EWR, CX flies from both. My responses, and a letter grade, are below:
Lounges (CX A- (ex JFK), B+ (ex EWR), UA D)
at JFK you get the AA FC lounge, at EWR you get the BA lounge. Both are vastly better than the crappy UC club at EWR.
at HKG the CX lounge is great, makes the UC club look like a low grade slum (and it is actually not bad for a UC).
Seat: (CX B+, UA C-)
UA has non-direct aisle access 2-2-2 seating ex-EWR. Seats are last gen, 78" of pitch, little storage space.
cx direct aisle access 82" long, harringbone, lots of storage/space.
Drinks (CX B+, UA D)
UA has random wines that cost about $12-15 retail. No espresso drinks. ETOH is not great
CX has wines that cost about $25-30 retail, espresso drinks, better booze, port.
Food (CX B-, UA C-)
CX's food has gone down hill, but is still better than what UA serves. If you like Texas cafateria style food, UA is for you.
In flight sevice (CX A-, UA C-)
I have always found CX crew to be helpful and attentive, but not stuffy like the SQ/JAL/ANA service. UA, some great helpful crews, but you also may get someone who thinks they work for a diner, slopping down food before going to read a magazine. YMMV.
No one in their right minds would say take UA. The only reason to take UA is (a) you have a corporate deal with them so its a lot cheaper, or (b) you are trying to retain GS or hit some level in UA's program.
Lounges (CX A- (ex JFK), B+ (ex EWR), UA D)
at JFK you get the AA FC lounge, at EWR you get the BA lounge. Both are vastly better than the crappy UC club at EWR.
at HKG the CX lounge is great, makes the UC club look like a low grade slum (and it is actually not bad for a UC).
Seat: (CX B+, UA C-)
UA has non-direct aisle access 2-2-2 seating ex-EWR. Seats are last gen, 78" of pitch, little storage space.
cx direct aisle access 82" long, harringbone, lots of storage/space.
Drinks (CX B+, UA D)
UA has random wines that cost about $12-15 retail. No espresso drinks. ETOH is not great
CX has wines that cost about $25-30 retail, espresso drinks, better booze, port.
Food (CX B-, UA C-)
CX's food has gone down hill, but is still better than what UA serves. If you like Texas cafateria style food, UA is for you.
In flight sevice (CX A-, UA C-)
I have always found CX crew to be helpful and attentive, but not stuffy like the SQ/JAL/ANA service. UA, some great helpful crews, but you also may get someone who thinks they work for a diner, slopping down food before going to read a magazine. YMMV.
No one in their right minds would say take UA. The only reason to take UA is (a) you have a corporate deal with them so its a lot cheaper, or (b) you are trying to retain GS or hit some level in UA's program.
Oct 17, 2017, 11:00 pm
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,420
CX catering has taken a big hit, but it is still one of the world's best airlines.
The CX Cirrus J seat is better than the B/E Diamond you'll get on UA EWR-HKG. More room, direct aisle access.
The CX aircraft will be cleaner overall, and the crew will keep the lav pristine during the flight. UA crews won't clean the lav.
I've always enjoyed the CX style of service. Agree with spin on this one.
The CX lounges at HKIA are among the best in the world.
While you might actually eat better on UA, I would still take CX. I don't think it's really a close call unless you're talking about the 77W with Polaris seat SFO-HKG.
The CX Cirrus J seat is better than the B/E Diamond you'll get on UA EWR-HKG. More room, direct aisle access.
The CX aircraft will be cleaner overall, and the crew will keep the lav pristine during the flight. UA crews won't clean the lav.
I've always enjoyed the CX style of service. Agree with spin on this one.
The CX lounges at HKIA are among the best in the world.
While you might actually eat better on UA, I would still take CX. I don't think it's really a close call unless you're talking about the 77W with Polaris seat SFO-HKG.
Oct 17, 2017, 11:03 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
If your return is back to IAD, I would consider taking NH or KE the whole way since you can fly either of them straight back to IAD though it looks like CX will sell you a connection to IAD/DCA on B6 via JFK on the return
Last edited by Duke787; Oct 17, 2017 at 11:08 pm
Oct 17, 2017, 11:06 pm
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811