Airline Passengers’ Willingness to Reserve Inflight Meals Online and Their Willingness to Pay for Meal Upgrades: The Case Study of U.S. Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract - Referring to the current abstract, the term cabin waste is not illustrated in any of the discussions. Need to insert in the discussion.
Introduction
- Problem statement - What is/are the research gap(s) that lead to the current study?
- Inflight meal upgrades - please clearly define - conceptually and operationally.
- Theoretical contribution of this study?
Research framework
- What is the theoretical underpinning for this current research framework/model?
- How demographics play a role in this model? Any literature on this? What aspect of demographics that this study focusing?
- The hypotheses?? - not discussed/stated.
Research methodology
- Sample size? How it was determined?
- Measurement issue - validity & reliability?
- Justification on choosing convenient sampling technique?
- Need to state quotation source(s) for a few claim made in the discussions of the first paragraph of this section. Please refer to the indication made in the review box.
section 4.5
- mentioned about five constructs - What are they? - inflight meal choice factors, SAT, WTP, WTRO and ???
[in the results' section] -- a few analyses (T-test and ANOVA)- were not mentioned in the methodology section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We deeply appreciate your feedback.
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting study that the authors investigated passengers' desired time and variables that make them reserve inflight meals online. Their results showed that participants were more likely to reserve inflight meals online when various inflight meal options were provided. Also, they found that participants presented a higher willingness to pay more when a variety of foods are provided with a lower willingness for healthy or religious foods.
The paper structure is generally appropriate and has some points of strength, although some details need to be clarified before acceptance:
1. The first few lines of the problem definition in the abstract are not related to the research topic (willingness to reserve inflight meals online). It is better to briefly present the reason for choosing the topic and its connection with the sustainability concept. As you mentioned in the introduction, you should highlight the importance of airlines carefully selecting the meal options that the passengers will enjoy without resulting in “less waste”. “The amount of food waste from unused and unconsumed products in the aircraft is huge, affecting the number of carbon footprints”.
2. In the introduction section, the concept of sustainability should be clearly explained (its different aspects such as environmental, social, economic, etc.) and which aspect you want to focus on in this study.
3. In the research method section, what is the reason for choosing a seven-point Likert-type scale in passengers' perceptions of inflight meals? Why didn't you use a five-point Likert scale?
4. The method of choosing the sample size (192 students) should be clearly explained, in which region or state of America the sampling was done, and other related explanations.
5. Line 334: Is there any justification for why about 75% of the sample is women?
6. It is suggested to present some descriptive results in the form of graphs, as in section 4.2 (Table 2 or 3).
7. In general, in the results part, the compliance of the results with the concept of sustainability was less seen. Were participants not asked about concepts such as sustainability for online meal choices? With the aim that this research was done to reduce the amount of inflight meals wastes.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your feedback.
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
-
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the authors for revising the paper.
