Digital Technology for Sustainable Air Transport: The Impact on Older Passengers in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and relevant study linking aviation, aging, and digital adoption. Its strengths lie in the integration of TAM and TPB and the stage-based analysis of passenger journeys. Nonetheless, substantial revisions are needed to strengthen methodological transparency, deepen the discussion of results, and expand implications for sustainability and inclusivity.

1. Methodology

Sampling: The survey targets passengers aged 50–64 in mainland China, yielding 256 valid responses. While appropriate for the study’s scope, the reliance on an online survey inherently excludes digitally marginalized groups. This introduces sampling bias, which the authors acknowledge but should emphasize more clearly.

Framework: The integration of TAM and TPB is theoretically sound and enhances explanatory power. However, more detail is needed on how survey items were operationalized and validated against the constructs of TAM and TPB. For instance, how were “perceived usefulness” and “behavioral intentions” quantified and cross-validated?

Data Analysis: Results are presented by travel stage (pre-airport, pre-flight, in-flight, after-flight, after-airport), which is a strength as it reflects real passenger journeys. Yet the statistical treatment is limited. Beyond descriptive percentages, the study could benefit from inferential analyses (e.g., correlations or regressions) to better establish relationships between variables.

2. Results and Discussion

The study highlights that digital tools have greatest impact in the pre-airport and pre-flight stages, while adoption is weaker in the in-flight and after-flight stages. This is an important finding but requires deeper interpretation. Why are older passengers reluctant to use in-flight entertainment or digital baggage services? Are the barriers primarily technical (usability) or perceptual (trust, comfort)?

The TPB analysis is a strong addition, showing that airline/airport promotion and clear guidance influence adoption. However, the analysis could more critically engage with the limits of self-reported intention versus actual behavior.

The sustainability implications are discussed, but more explicit connections to environmental and social outcomes (e.g., paperless travel, inclusivity, waste reduction) would strengthen the impact.

3. Conclusions
The conclusions are generally consistent with the results: older passengers—particularly the “young-old”—show positive attitudes and intentions toward digital air travel. However, the study risks overgeneralization, as it excludes the “old-old” (65+) who often face more significant barriers. This limitation should be discussed more directly, as it affects the broader claim about sustainable air travel behavior among older passengers.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. Please find all the required information in the PDF file 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates how older passengers (50–64 years old) perceive and interact with digital air travel technologies in China. Using a questionnaire survey (n = 256 valid responses), the authors apply the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to evaluate attitudes, perceived ease of use, and behavioral intentions. The manuscript claims that older passengers, especially “young-old” travelers, show generally positive attitudes toward digital tools (time savings, convenience, cost reduction) and that these tools can motivate repeat air travel, thus supporting sustainable aviation.

• First of all, the manuscript repeatedly overstates the novelty of applying TAM and TPB. These models have been applied extensively in transport and technology adoption contexts. What is the new offered theoretically?
• Sustainability is mentioned throughout the manuscript, however no real sustainability metrics (environmental impacts, carbon savings, lifecycle analysis) are evaluated. Simply equating digital adoption with sustainability is unsubstantiated.
• The link between digital adoption and sustainable passenger behavior is speculative at best. Correlation is conflated with causation.

• The sample size of 256 is too small and unrepresentative for a country the size of China, especially considering its vast heterogeneity in digital literacy, income, and geography.
• Given the reliance on self-reported survey data and the application of TAM/TPB constructs, the authors should consider employing a global sensitivity analysis to systematically evaluate the robustness of their results to uncertainties in input assumptions, model parameters, and measurement error. This would add rigor, strengthen the reliability of the findings, and help avoid overstated conclusions.” If not possible, refer to this as future work, citing the global sensitivity analysis definition and techniques found in studies: “ Global sensitivity analysis for studying hot-mix asphalt dynamic modulus parameters” and “ Global sensitivity analysis for seismic performance of shear wall with high-strength steel bars and recycled aggregate concrete”.
• Recruiting participants only through online surveys inherently excludes the very population most at risk of digital exclusion—those who lack internet access or skills. This introduces a massive sampling bias and undermines the core claims about “older passengers.”
• The study restricts the sample to 50–64 years old, conveniently avoiding the “old-old” group (65+), yet still makes sweeping claims about “older passengers.” This should be acknowledged as a serious limitation, not a minor one.
• The use of “unit percentage” (UP, %) as a measure in TAM analysis is poorly explained and non-standard. The method lacks statistical rigor and does not meet the expectations of a high-quality empirical paper.

• The analysis is largely descriptive (tables of percentages) with no inferential statistics, regression modeling, or hypothesis testing.
• There is no attempt to validate the TAM and TPB constructs (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, confirmatory factor analysis).
• The authors oscillate between qualitative and quantitative approaches without clear justification. The TPB “qualitative” analysis of “meaning units” is poorly explained, subjective, and lacks methodological transparency.

• The authors generalize results from a small, biased sample in China to “older passengers” globally.
• The link between digital adoption and repeat travel is weakly supported. Self-reported intentions do not equate to actual behavior, yet the authors treat them as predictive evidence.
• The study does not compare older passengers with younger cohorts, making it impossible to know whether observed attitudes are truly unique to older passengers.
• The survey is cross-sectional; conclusions about “sustainable” or “long-term” adoption are speculative without longitudinal tracking of actual behavior.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in yellow in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studies older passengers’ attitudes, behavior and evaluations of digital air travel, as well as the impact of digital technologies on this demographic.

 I have the fallowing observation for the authors:

1. The sample is far too narrow (301 responses were collected, with 256 being valid) - the authors acknowledge that mainly "digitally literate" passengers are included, which compromises the relevance of the results for the target group
2. The study is based only on a structured questionnaire, without the support of methodological triangulation, qualitative analysis or rigorous statistical methods to verify hypotheses.
3. The study is exclusively on China, but the conclusions are formulated in a generalizing tone, as if they were globally applicable.
4. The conclusions are rather descriptive and intuitive. The authors could have included:
   1. Key findings
   2. Limitations
   3. Future research directions
5. In my opinion, for a high-ranked academic journal, the level of depth and rigor is insufficient. The paper is more like an applied report than a top scientific article.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file below, and the corresponding corrections highlighted in yellow in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has addressed most of the major concerns raised in the initial review. The authors have substantially improved the paper by:

• Explicitly acknowledging the sampling bias inherent in using online surveys and its implications for generalizability.

• Providing clearer interpretations for the lower adoption rates in the in-flight and after-flight stages, citing usability, trust, and familiarity issues.

• Adding discussion on the limitations of self-reported behavioral intentions within the TPB framework.

• Strengthening the sustainability implications by linking digital adoption more explicitly to environmental and social outcomes (e.g., paperless travel, inclusivity, waste reduction).

• Highlighting the limitation of excluding the 65+ “old-old” population and its effect on broader claims about older passengers.

These revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity and contribution of the paper. 

Remaining Issues:

• The manuscript still relies mainly on descriptive statistics. No inferential analysis (e.g., correlations, regressions) has been added, which somewhat limits the explanatory strength of the study.

• The measurement and validation of TAM/TPB constructs could be described in greater detail, particularly regarding reliability and validity testing.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments!

In line with the recommendations, a correlation analysis has been conducted. Additionally, the measurement and validation of the TAM/TPB constructs have been elaborated in greater detail, with particular emphasis on reliability and validity testing. All changes were highlighted in red. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not address my comments in the first report adequately. If GSA is not possible, at least refer to it as future work with supporting references

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The following changes were added to the research article:

1. Correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among TAM/TPB constructs and behavioural intention, revealing that all associations were positive but modest, with perceived usefulness emerging as the strongest predictor
2. We have noted this as a limitation and suggested future studies include younger age groups to assess generational differences.

3. We now explicitly state in the Conclusion that our results apply only to the “young-old” (50–64) and should not be generalised to the “old-old” (65+) due to their lower digital engagement and different travel behaviours. It is impossible to change the number of responses at this stage of research. We have clarified in Section 3.1 and 3.2 that the sample size is appropriate for an exploratory study and targeted only the young-old (50–64) who travel independently. We added a statement that future work should use larger, stratified samples across China’s diverse regions.

4. The measurement and validation of the TAM/TPB constructs have been elaborated in greater detail, with particular emphasis on reliability and validity testing. All changes were highlighted in red. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript in line with my observations, and I appreciate their efforts to address the comments. Even though, in my view, the paper still reads more like an applied report than a top-tier scientific article, I believe it nonetheless has value and can be useful for the field. Therefore, I would be in favor of its publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful review and for acknowledging our efforts to revise the manuscript in line with your earlier comments. We appreciate your recognition that the paper provides value to the field and your support for its publication. We are grateful for your constructive feedback throughout the review process and for your recommendation in favor of publication

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.