This NYC airport has the best lounge for foodies, says new ranking
And we're not talking sad buffet spreads. The Chelsea Lounge's à la carte menu is a true pre-flight indulgence, featuring seasonal dishes crafted by chefs tied to the James Beard Foundation like chilled English pea soup, curry sweet potato bisque and roasted salmon alongside British nods like afternoon tea and New York-style toffee cheesecake. Not bad for something you can order in airport socks.
At the center of it all is a circular Champagne bar that's basically a travel influencer's dream. Premium pours from the likes of Moët, Roederer and Krug 170ème Édition (which retails for $200-plus) flow freely, backed by a full roster of wines, whiskeys and cocktails.
Access to the Chelsea Lounge is, unsurprisingly, exclusive. Entry is reserved for Flagship First and Flagship Business Plus passengers on American, or First Class travelers on British Airways long-haul flights. Certain elite loyalty members like ConciergeKey and BA Club Gold also get through the velvet rope.
What makes the lounge even more appealing (beyond the champers)? Its ambiance. Travelers can dine fireside with table service, creating a restaurant-like experience that feels miles from terminal chaos. And with JFK's Terminal 8 upgrades complete, the space itself is a sleek, art-filled retreat.
Rounding out the ranking were lounges at CDG (Air France's Michelin-starred La Première Lounge took top honors), Istanbul, Dubai and LAX. But for New York-based globetrotters with a taste for the finer things, Chelsea Lounge is the city's high-flying culinary heavyweight.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
UK betting firm Evoke reports rise in second-quarter revenue
July 22 (Reuters) - British betting and gaming firm Evoke (EVOK.L), opens new tab reported a 5% year-on-year rise in second-quarter revenue on Tuesday, driven by growth in its core international markets and tight cost control.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Caterer Compass raises profit forecast, buys Vermaat in $1.8 billion deal
July 22 (Reuters) - British food catering firm Compass Group (CPG.L), opens new tab raised its annual profit forecast on Tuesday, boosted by acquisitions and a strong third quarter. The world's largest catering group also agreed to buy European premium food services business Vermaat Groep for about 1.5 billion euros ($1.75 billion) including debt. ($1 = 0.8558 euros)
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The problem of striking a defence deal with the EU
The UK-EU summit in London in May at which a new relationship between the parties was agreed seems a long time ago now. In fact, it is barely eight weeks, but we live in a world which has supercharged Harold Wilson's mordant dictum that 'a week is a long time in politics'. They seem like aeons now. One major subject at the summit was the EU's financial instrument Security Action for Europe (Safe). This is a fund of €150 billion (£130 billion) which will provide loans for member states to undertake urgent, large-scale defence procurement projects, with the aim of addressing capability gaps and boosting the European defence industry's production capacity. However, Brussels makes clear that 'beneficiary member states will have to carry out, in principle, common procurements involving at least two participating countries to qualify for the loans'. It is now clear that the UK will need to pay a fee to participate in this scheme. The amount has not yet been fixed, but EU diplomats reason that 'since British businesses would receive EU money to create jobs and expand capacity under the scheme, London should recompense Brussels'. France is said to be pushing for a significant contribution, while others, including Germany, are keen not to set the tariff so high that the UK does not participate at all. This should come as no surprise. The prima facie terms of the Safe scheme, initially excluding the US and the UK (between them home to ten of the world's twenty biggest defence contractors), left French and German manufacturers like Thales, Rheinmetall and KNDS at the head of the queue to benefit from new spending. Thales and KNDS, as well as Naval Group and Safran, are, as it happens, part-owned by the French state. In these circumstances, the question of who benefits was not a particularly challenging one. Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? At the summit in May, Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK-EU agreement would 'open the door to working with the EU's new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods'. That was, I argued at the time, one of the main motivating factors behind the agreement. After all, the rules for Safe make it clear: Safe will also allow acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries that have signed a security and defence partnership with the EU, such as the United Kingdom, to join common procurements. Alas, there was a brief cautionary note that Britain's participation would be 'subject to a separate negotiation and conditions, including a financial contribution from the UK'. The European Commission's spokesman for defence, Thomas Regnier, told the Financial Times that, under the terms of the agreement, UK-based companies could provide up to 35 per cent of the value of procurement through Safe, but going beyond that would depend on 'an agreement with the EU on the precise modalities on aspects such as budget contribution and security of supply'. This was inevitable. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist organisation which seeks to gain as much advantage as possible for the economies of its member states. That is not a criticism, merely an observation: but it has highlighted the disadvantages of pursuing defence policy through the EU, of which we are not a member, rather than Nato, a dedicated military alliance of which we have been part for more than 75 years. (It is true the overlap between the EU and Nato is not complete: although acting through the latter would include the US, Canada and Turkey, it would exclude the military superpowers of Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.) The Cabinet Office has offered bland, reality-defying reassurance: 'It is in all our interests for the UK and EU to bring together our unique capabilities and expertise to make Europe a safer, more secure, and more prosperous place'. Indeed so, but perhaps that is a message better directed towards the French government, while there still is one. There have been pious expressions of hope that 'parochial national interests' do not undermine Safe's potential to contribute to Europe's overall security. But this is the EU, the bare-knuckle fight club of national interests. It has weak defence institutions but strong ambitions to accrete more competencies to the centre. And the hard-edged realpolitik of Brussels is showing the relative emptiness of the clutch of bilateral agreements Starmer has concluded. There is a clear choice. What is Europe's overriding priority: building the continent's defence capabilities or strengthening national defence industrial bases? The rules governing Safe effectively choose the latter; that is a matter for member states. But perhaps the British government should not have so eagerly chased a mechanism that was bound to work to our disadvantage. The Strategic Defence Review set out a 'Nato First' policy – perhaps we should have focused more closely on that mantra.
