Which would you prefer to arrive at, Newark or JFK ? I'm thinking of convenience for central NYC,distance, facilities in transport and so on. Most of you never have to deal with immigration, lucky you, but does anyone know whether one is likely to be much slower than the other?

You need to slow down a little. First, the city of New York is actually five boroughs: Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, The Bronx, and Staten Island (Richmond, but hardly ever called this now). Obviously, Manhattan is usually considered by outsiders to be the full city of New York, but it is not. I assume that you are trying to visit Manhattan. Well, there are two airports in Queens, and LaGuardia is closer to Manhattan. Yet, even if you land in JFK, there is public transportation by train to Manhattan. Only come to LaGuardia if you are booking a hotel near LaGuardia and planning to spend most of your time in Manhattan.

I will now tell it to you like it is. If you arrive in Newark and ask to go to Manhattan, you will be considered to be such a hick that you will likely by mugged first of all by the taxi driver, who will rip you off. Newark is one tough neighborhood. I used to board a bus in Brooklyn, also a tough place, to visit the church of a preacher in Newark, until he dropped dead from being hit over the head with a crowbar there.

My pick? JFK and the train to Manhattan if your hotel is in Manhattan, but LaGuardia and the train to Manhattan if your hotel is near LaGuardia. P.S. I suspect that a hotel in Queens, whether near LaGuardia or JFK, is a lot less expensive than a Manhattan hotel. Bingo!

Thanks . I asked because the reason why any European airline chooses an airport unknown abroad , as against the famous international one ,is not its attractiveness to passengers but the cheapness of using it: landing fees, the availability of landing rights and all other commercial considerations of the airline.

I figured, and we both know the saying, "You get what you pay for."