INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCE

IN AIRPORT EXPERIENCE:
THE CASE OF PHL
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT

A Thesis
Submitted to
the Temple University Graduate Board

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
OF TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT

by
Yelizaveta Li
May 2023

Thesis Approvals:

Yang Yang, Thesis Advisor, Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management

Xiang (Robert) Li, Committee Member, Department of Tourism and Hospitality
Management
Lu Lu, Committee Member, Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management
 ABSTRACT

Airports serve as one of the main economic engines and connection hubs for a

country, and therefore, their performance is of rising importance. Airport performance can

be measured by various methods along numerous dimensions; however, the key remains

the passenger-perceived service quality and satisfaction. This paper assumes heterogeneity

of passengers by classifying them into generational cohorts and investigating whether there

is an intergenerational difference in passenger experience at the Philadelphia International

Airport and what factors may explain that. The study utilizes the survey data collected

through the questionnaire distributed to departing/connecting PHL passengers. The

methodology includes regression analysis, ANOVA model and cross-tabulations. The

findings confirm the presence of variation in passenger experience and satisfaction with

the airport depending on their generational affiliation. The intergenerational difference was

particularly significant in the overall experience with PHL, which includes 24 items related

to experience outside of the airport, outside of the terminal, and inside the terminal, as well

as retail/shopping experience and information sources and needs. The intergenerational

difference was not significant in the passenger food/beverage experience at PHL.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................v

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi

1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1

1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................... 1

1.2 Airport Industry Overview ........................................................................................ 2

1.3 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 4

1.5 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Research Methods ..................................................................................................... 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................8

2.1 Intergenerational Difference ..................................................................................... 8

2.1.1 General theories .................................................................................................. 8

2.1.2 Intergenerational differences in travel and consumer behavior .......................... 9

2.2 Airport Experience .................................................................................................. 19

2.2.1 Components of airport experience based on industrial standards .................... 20

2.2.2 Components of airport experience based on scholarly works .......................... 21

2.2.3 Determinants of airport experience .................................................................. 30

2.3 Food and Beverage/Retailing Behavior and Experience......................................... 32

iii
 2.3.1 Components of food and beverage/retailing experience .................................. 33

2.3.2 Determinants of food and beverage/retailing experience ................................. 34

2.3.3 Shopping psychology and behavior .................................................................. 36

2.4 Information Source and Search Behavior ............................................................... 38

3. DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH METHOD .................................................44

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................47

4.1 Experience at PHL .................................................................................................. 47

4.2 Retail and Shopping Experience ............................................................................. 53

4.3 Food and Beverage Experience ............................................................................... 56

4.4 Information Source .................................................................................................. 59

5. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................62

5.1 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 61

5.2 Implications ............................................................................................................. 66

5.3 Research Limitations ............................................................................................... 68

REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................71

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Pages

Table 2.1 Comparison between Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z .....................17

Table 2.2 Industry and recent literature-based components of airport experience ............24

Table 4.1. ANOVA results of satisfaction with experience at PHL ..................................48

Table 4.2 Regression results with satisfaction with the retail and shopping experience at
PHL as an independent variable ........................................................................................50

Table 4.3 Regression results with satisfaction with the food and beverage experience at
PHL as an independent variable ........................................................................................50

Table 4.4. Regression results with components of airport experience as independent

variables. ............................................................................................................................51

Table 4.5 Percentage of respondents who used/not used retail and food/beverage stores by
generation ...........................................................................................................................54

Table 4.6 ANOVA results of satisfaction with retail and shopping experience. ...............55

Table 4.7. Cross-tabulation of the percentage of expenditure on retail/shopping per person

while at PHL ......................................................................................................................55

Table 4.8. Cross-tabulation of retail and shopping businesses visited ..............................56

Table 4.9 Percentage of passengers who used/not used food and beverage stores............57

Table 4.10 ANOVA of satisfaction with food and beverage stores ..................................58

Table 4.11 Cross-tabulation of the percentage of expenditure on food/beverage per person

while at PHL ......................................................................................................................58

Table 4.12 Cross-tabulation of food and beverage businesses visited...............................59

Table 4.13 Sources of information used by different generations. ....................................60

Table 4.14. Sources of information used by different generations. ...................................61

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Pages

Figure 2.1. SERVQUAL gaps ...........................................................................................21

Figure 2.2. A preliminary conceptual model for airport service quality ...........................22

Figure 2.3. Theory of planned behavior.............................................................................33

Figure 2.4. Consumer information acquisition and processing model ..............................39

vi
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Airports represent important elements of the tourism and hospitality industry and

serve as powerful economic engines for the country (Freidheim & Hansson, 1999). Apart

from generating more than $1.4 trillion in annual economic output and supporting 11.5

million jobs in 2017, they accounted for more than 7 percent of the U.S. GDP (ACI, 2018).

Covid-19 crisis and its impacts severely affected airports’ revenue in 2021, with North

American region airports’ revenue declining by 14.2% compared to 2019, which equals a

loss of $4.9 billion (ACI, 2022). Consequently, the importance of understanding the

changes in passenger experience, behavior, and satisfaction as one of the driving forces of

airport rehabilitation, cannot be overemphasized.

The study uses data collected during the passenger survey at Philadelphia

International Airport (PHL). PHL is a primary airport hub in the city of Philadelphia. As

of today, the airport serves 32.24 million passengers annually with 25 airlines and nearly

500 daily departures to 140 destinations worldwide. PHL Airport is self-sustaining and

plays an important role as one of the largest economic engines in the region, contributing

billions to the economy and accounting for more than 100,000 jobs annually. As the

mission of the airport is to “proudly connect Philadelphia with the world,” driven by the

vision of being the “world-class global gateway of choice” (PHL, 2022), the importance of

constant growth and improvement of the airport is hard to underestimate. To meet the

world-class standards of service and constantly evolving customer expectations, the airport

needs to keep its finger on the pulse of the rapidly changing environment, have a better
1
understanding of its passengers, and diagnose and improve any potential cavities to achieve

recognition and excellence (PHL, 2022).

1.2 Airport Industry Overview

It is essential to represent the study in the context of the recent changes in the

industry to interpret and understand the results more accurately. Several phenomena in the

airport industry took place during the study.

After two years since the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak and associated travel

restrictions and policies in place, the tourism and hospitality industry is now seeing

recovery. With the introduction of vaccines and boosters, the perceived levels of personal

risk when traveling and using hospitality settings have gradually improved. Consumer

sentiment towards air travel is also showing a positive trend, and passenger traffic is

expected to rebound in the next years, reaching and surpassing the pre-pandemic levels

(Fox, 2022).

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, as of May 2022, U.S. airlines

carried 71.2 million domestic and international passengers, which is 29.7% more compared

to the same month last year (Bureau of Transportation, 2022). In its Air Passenger Market

Analysis, IATA reports that total international air traffic in April 2022 was up 76%

compared to the same month in the previous year (IATA, 2022). Despite promising

forecasts, high willingness to travel abroad, and optimistic views of IATA General Director

Willie Walsh, who believes that “with the lifting of many border restrictions, we are seeing

the long-expected surge in bookings as people seek to make up for two years of lost travel

opportunities” (Wood, 2022), there are several factors that can negatively affect travelers,
2
including surging jet fuel prices, inflation, labor shortages, political instability in certain

regions and low consumer confidence. As a result, travelers’ experience can be

considerably deteriorated and lead to lower satisfaction levels and backlash to hospitality

organizations.

The overall Airport Satisfaction Study by J.D. Power revealed satisfaction to be

down 25 points in 2022, primarily due to fewer available flights, flight delays and

cancellations, overcrowded terminals, and spare food and beverage offerings (Effler, 2022).

Travel intelligence lead at J.D. Power, Michael Taylor, states that:

The combination of pent-up demand for air travel, the nationwide labor
shortage and steadily rising prices on everything from jet fuel to a bottle of
water have created a scenario in which airports are extremely crowded and
passengers are increasingly frustrated—and it is likely to continue through
2023. (Bloom, 2022).

Thus, the outcomes of the study might be heavily influenced by the context of the

study and recent economic, market, and socio-cultural changes.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

Building upon relevant theories on the role of demographic variables, particularly

the generational affiliation of passengers, in shaping passenger experience and satisfaction,

the purpose of this thesis is to investigate the existence of intergenerational difference in

passenger experience among Philadelphia International Airport departing/connecting

passengers. This paper assumes the definition of generational cohorts to include Baby

Boomers (born 1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), Millennials (1981-1996), and

Generation Z (1997-2012) (Dimock, 2019). It includes an investigation of behavioral

3
patterns of passengers, acknowledgement of the heterogeneity of passengers from the

cohort perspective and outlining of actionable managerial implications. This thesis is based

on the results of the survey of departing/connecting passengers at PHL and is intended to

provide insights to the hospitality and tourism industry about the factors affecting

passenger satisfaction at the airports, passenger experience, and behavior from a

generational cohort perspective.

1.4 Significance of the Study

All dimensions of the previous investigations are centered around passengers, as

these days, service-intense hospitality settings like airports recognize the significance of a

passenger-oriented approach, considering service quality and passenger satisfaction, which

directly affect non-aeronautical revenue and profitability of airports (Jiang & Zhang, 2016).

Relevant studies attempted to segment airport passengers by age group and

compare the difference in airport experience by age cohorts. For instance, the study of

Melbourne Airport revealed that there are differences between passengers’ expectations of

service quality and actual satisfaction, with the former being consistently higher among

older passengers (Jiang & Zhang, 2016). However, the previous studies did not recognize

the heterogeneity of passengers segmented by generational cohorts and various factors

associated with certain generational characteristics such as the shared background.

Therefore, instead of looking at passengers as a homogeneous group, this study will focus

on their intergenerational differences in satisfaction and behavior and provide a customized

approach and practical implications such as market segmentation, communication channels,

and service failure management to the aviation industry.

4
1.5 Research Questions

The present study is intended to discuss the generational cohort effect of PHL

passengers by answering the following research questions:

1) Is there an intergenerational difference in the PHL passenger experience, and if yes,

what are these differences?

2) Is there an intergenerational difference in behavior in the context of food/beverage

and retailing at PHL Airport, and if yes, what are these differences?

3) Is there an intergenerational difference in information source and search behavior

among passengers of PHL Airport, and if yes, what are these differences?

1.6 Research Methods

This study is based on the data collected during the 2022 PHL Passenger Survey

Project conducted by Temple University’s U.S.-Asia Center for Tourism and Hospitality

Research. It involved more than 4,050 PHL originating and connecting passengers

surveyed between February and May 2022. The purpose of the project was to understand

the experiential journey of PHL departing passengers and assess their satisfaction with the

airport experience. The thesis is centered around the variables related to overall satisfaction

with the airport, satisfaction with food and beverage/retail, the amount of spending on food

and beverage/retail, and the information needs and search behavior of PHL passengers.

The survey data was processed to include the relevant period between February 8, 2022,

and June 7, 2022, along with the 4,050 valid responses only. An additional variable with

participants binned by four generations was generated, totaling the number of observed

5
responses to 4,003 (excluding representatives of the Silent Generation and participants

younger than 18 y.o.).

The methodology of the present thesis is based on the analysis of survey data with

ANOVA model, cross-tabulations, and regression analysis, and with the use of statistical

tools SPSS and Excel. The goal will be to investigate whether there is a relationship and

difference between generational cohorts and their overall satisfaction with the airport,

food/beverage/retail, and information search behavior and needs.

The one-way ANOVA model or Analysis of Variance is a widely used tool for

evaluating the relationship among variables with a single independent variable of interest

and comparing means between two or more groups. This method is used to compare the

mean satisfaction with food/beverage/retail scores of four generational cohorts. The single

factor ANOVA also provides significance values such as F and p-values are used to test

the statistical significance of the difference between the variables.

Cross-tabulation or contingency tables are used to quantitatively analyze the

relationship between multiple variables. The present study used it to investigate the patterns

in food/beverage and shopping spending behavior of passengers and the types of businesses

used depending on their generational affiliation. It is also used to identify whether there

are any patterns in the sources relied upon for information on PHL and the type of

information needed across four generations. The analysis includes the identification of chi-

square, degrees of freedom, and p-value. A chi-square statistic is used to measure the

discrepancy between the observed and expected frequencies of the outcomes of a set of

variables and test for the statistical significance of the relationship between the variables.
6
F and p-values are also used to determine whether the test is statistically significant when

observing the relationship between 24 items related to passenger satisfaction with

experience outside and inside of the airport and generational cohorts.

Regression analysis is a prominent statistical method used to investigate the

relationship between multiple variables, particularly the influence of independent variables

on a dependent variable. It is used to examine the relationship between generational

affiliation and overall satisfaction with the PHL experience.

7
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Intergenerational Difference

2.1.1 General theories. Passenger expectations, shopping behavior, and

satisfaction with the airport are determined by numerous factors. One of the factors

affecting passengers’ experience at the airport is their association with a certain

generational cohort group. People from the same generational group create a cohort effect

which implies that they exert similar behavioral patterns and have comparable values and

attitudes as a result of intrinsic characteristics built around their previous experiences

(Beldona, 2005). It is important to understand those generational differences in behavior,

motivations, and attitudes as they are directly related to overall satisfaction with the airport

and consequently the airport’s non-aeronautical revenue. Although there is no single

consensus regarding the time interval of each generation, this study is focusing on four

generational cohorts: Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), Generation X (1965-

1980), Millennials or Gen Y (1981-1996) and Generation Z (1997-2010) (McKinsey &

Company, 2018). Baby Boomers and Gen X are considered older generations while

Millennials and Gen Z are referred to as younger generations. According to Statista, as of

2021, the resident population in the U.S. by generation statistics show that the largest share

of the population belongs to Millennial Generation (72.19m people), followed by Baby

Boomers (70.23m), Gen Z (68.6m) and Gen X (65.8m) (Statista, 2021).

According to Parment (2013), different generational cohorts have various

backgrounds, preferences, values, and experiences which result in different purchase

behavior, level of involvement, and motivations. Beldona (2005) argues that cultural and

8
social factors are important characteristics in consumer behavior and individuals with an

analogous set of experiences and background specific to a certain generation have similar

traits and consumption patterns. The same notion is supported by Lehto, Jang, Achana, and

O'Leary (2008) that the collective preferences, attitudes, and behaviors of age groups are

believed to be dependent on political and socio-economic events of the time, technological

advancements, lifestyle changes, and educational opportunities. One of the earliest studies

that laid a basis for the concept was Strauss-Howe’s generational theory (Strauss & Howe,

1991) which supports the idea that the same age cohort exhibit and shares similar values,

beliefs, interests, skills, capabilities, and expectations. Recent study by Li et al. (2013) used

a generational analysis to investigate the differences and similarities among American

international travelers in the context of tourism consumer behavior. Although the study

provides a comprehensive analysis of four generations (Silent Generation, Baby Boomers,

Gen X and Gen Y) in tourism context, the generalization of the results can be limited as

the airport context is different from other hospitality settings, due to fact that passengers’

major purpose at the airport is not shopping (Omar & Kent, 2001) or other travel and

recreational activities.

2.1.2 Intergenerational Differences in Travel and Consumer Behavior.

Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers represent the share of the population born between

1946 to 1964 and, by many scientists, are claimed to be one of the most important

generation groups due to the size of this cohort group and a relatively higher purchasing

power (Worsley, Hunter, & Wang, 2010). They have a unique social and historical

background that binds them together and makes them distinct in their attitudes and

9
behaviors from other generations. For instance, Lehto, Jang, Achana, and O’Leary (2008)

claim that Boomer seniors, although might have limited physical and mental abilities, are

still seeking active and self-fulfilling leisure activities and experiences in their life, such as

traveling. This generational cohort is characterized by the need to have fun elements in

their travels (Wei & Milman, 2002) and, interestingly, are more willing to engage in

adventurous activities, personal challenges, and cultural and novelty experiences

(Horneman, Wei, & Sherrie, 2002) (Schiffman & Sherman, 1994). This is supported by the

results of the study (Lehto, Jang, Achana, & O'Leary, 2008), which revealed that Baby

Boomers predominantly preferred experiences related to going on trips with the family,

romance and intimacy, and adventure and excitement. Moreover, some seniors in the

cohort have a higher participation rate in outdoor activities and nature-based locations. In

addition, older Boomers are claimed to be closer to the younger cohorts such as Gen X,

than to be aspired by previous generations. Nevertheless, they still share some similarities

with other types of mature travelers, including an interest in dining, nature and cultural

tourism, and sightseeing.

Baby Boomers as an aging population tend to have a higher risk of suffering from

various diseases and have limited mobility which can affect their food and beverage

consumption habits and shopping behavior (Worsley, Hunter, & Wang, 2010). They tend

to prefer traditional and quality food options, are price-conscious, and pay attention to

nutritional value. Personal values, education, and income are also believed to be related to

the food choice and purchasing decisions of baby boomers. For example, universalist and

benevolence values had a positive correlation with high-quality food shopping among baby

10
boomers, such as natural foods and healthy diets for family members, and had a negative

impact on price minimization, particularly among men of this group (Schwartz, 1992).

Another study of older consumers in New Zealand (Goodwin & Mcelwee, 1999), revealed

that service quality and easily recognized brands were the key dimensions for those

consumers in terms of shopping, where service quality is based on convenience, personal

interaction, and store image (Lu & Seock, 2008).

Worsley and Wang (2011) support this idea with their findings that Baby Boomers

base their choice of food and beverage establishments on the following factors:

convenience, quality, price, availability of healthy foods, and a user-friendly environment.

Retired baby boomers are more price-conscious, and their satisfaction with food shopping

also depends on social interaction. Despite that, the study revealed that the interest in

savings decreases as people become older, and other determinants such as gender,

household income, and marital status affect their decision-making. Baby Boomers are also

less concerned about environmental sustainability in their shopping, such as recycling

facilities at the stores.

Generation X. Generation X are people born between 1965-1980 and are

characterized as individuals with greater life experience and family responsibilities

compared to younger generations. They tend to seek higher quality products and services,

compare them and attempt to get more information about future purchases. They are

pragmatic and flexible in their behavior and tend to be cautious and skeptical about new

things. Their main values include family and friends, and they are more likely to prefer

11
spiritual values, opportunities, and intellectual development rather than accumulate

material wealth (Glass, 2007).

In terms of travel behavior, Omnitrak’s Traveltrak America (Omnitrack Compass,

2021) data from a survey report that “Active Gen X” travelers tend to spend more per trip

($914 on average) and travel in larger groups (2.49 persons) compared to representatives

of other generations since they are typically in the workforce, have family and are engaged

in the community and social activities. In addition, Gen X travelers reported the highest

interest in travel as of the fourth quarter of 2020 and are expected to lead the recovery in

domestic leisure travel. They prefer cultural experiences such as sightseeing, museums and

art galleries, and historical sites and monuments (McIntyre, 2022). They are also attracted

to locations such as beaches, theme parks, and spectator sports.

Concerning shopping behavior, they often engage in online shopping for relaxation;

however, their purchasing decision tends to be less influenced by traditional online

advertising (Mintel Group Ltd., 2016). Other studies contradict this by stating that, similar

to Millennials, Gen Xers are more likely to trust the personal experiences of other

individuals who share their opinion through eWoM (electronic word of mouth), rather than

company-controlled advertisements and promotional spots (Chawdhary & Dall`Olmo

Riley, 2015). The result of the study also showed that when making a purchasing decision,

particularly Gen Xers’ choice of food and beverage products, they rely on online

information and comments from other consumers, especially paying more attention to any

possible criticism or flaws of the products and services, as well as the food products

characteristics. According to the authors, Gen Xers are more difficult to approach due to

12
their higher income and education which entitle them to be more pragmatic and responsible

in assessing the credibility of social media comments, and the life experience that made

them more cautious concerning purchasing decisions.

Millennials (Gen Y). Millennials are categorized as the “younger” generation born

between 1981 and 1996. Along with the other generations, millennials share the same traits,

attitudes, and beliefs. They are influenced by the social, historical, economic, and political

events and changes in the world that took place during their lifetime, particularly increased

technological integration in their everyday lives (Moreno, Lafuente, Avila, & Moreno,

2017). Understanding Millennials is of growing importance for all tourism and hospitality

industries as they constitute the largest share of the U.S. population, and their purchasing

power and consumption patterns make them an attractive target for businesses. People

belonging to this cohort are characterized by increased connectivity, adaptation, and use of

social media, new communication channels, and digital technology, including television,

smartphones, computers, video games, and Internet-based platforms (Omar, Sallehuddin,

Hafizah, & Hassan, 2016).

In terms of traveling, Bilgihan (2016) describes them as travel lovers who prefer to

spend money on experiences. According to another study by Rita, Brochado, and Dimova

(2018), Gen Y is motivated to travel to relax and experience a different lifestyle at the same

time, while its most appealing destination activities are found to be trying local food and

sightseeing.

Their shopping behavior includes the search for brands and products that

correspond to their personality, lifestyle, image, and social values (Moreno, Lafuente,
13
Avila, & Moreno, 2017). Weyland (2011) also suggests that Gen Y is attracted to strong

brands, and companies with strong values, social ethics, distinctive brands, and non-

hierarchical environments. Compared to previous generations, Gen Y has a strong sense of

self-identity (Nichols, Raska, & Flint, 2014). Compared to other generations, they tend to

be less brand loyal and rely on emotions. This segment enjoys unique shopping experiences

both offline and online, particularly valuing utilitarian benefits such as value for money

and visually appealing website designs. Lissitsa and Kol (2016) also reveal that Millennials

tend to make purchases more frequently and impulsively, while social media platforms

such as Facebook and Instagram are one of the most important sources of information and

confidence in online sellers. Gen Y spends more effort on high-involvement product

decisions than older generations (Parment, 2013). Millennials are characterized as quick-

spenders of their income compared to previous generations and they value the personal

life-work balance. According to Weber (2015), in terms of food and beverage preferences,

they opt for healthier, fresher food choices and prefer restaurants that offer customizable

menu options.

Generation Z. Generation Z captures people born in the timespan between 1997-

2010. They are described as true digital natives, influencers, and trendsetters as they were

born in the time of booming use of the Internet, social networks, mobile systems, and other

advanced technologies. One of the main drivers for this generational cohort is the search

for truth; therefore, they are sometimes referred to as “True Gen” (McKinsey & Company,

2018). They value self-expression and avoid labels and stereotypes, while their decision-

making and attitude towards organizations and institutions are highly analytical and

14
pragmatic. Representatives of Gen Z are realistic, individualistic, and competitive.

Although young, they tend to be financially conscious and tech-savvy.

In the travel context, Gen Zs are driven by escapism, seeking adventure and novelty,

or following the popular travel culture (Wood, 2013). This generational cohort tends to

search for travel experiences and value for money. Haddouche and Salomone (2018) claim

that for Gen Zs traveling is also a means of socialization, empowerment, and conviviality.

They are often driven by the fear of missing out (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, &

Gladwell, 2013). Another study (Liu, Wang, Zhang, & Qiao, 2022) shows that Gen Z is

more likely to be influenced by entertainment, trendiness, interaction, and WOM.

According to Robinson and Schanzel (2019), Generation Z travel experiences are affected

by three influences: immediate influences (e.g., home events, family, friends), destination

influences (e.g., socio-political, cultural, physical features/attributes), and global

influences (e.g., geopolitics, economic, technological). For example, one of the immediate

influencers can be the country of origin which pre-determines the spending patterns and

behavioral and attitudinal patterns of individuals. Among destination influences, terrorist

attacks can affect the mindset of international tourists and their perception of safety and

security. However, the research found that Gen Zs became accustomed to the constantly

changing global environment. Moreover, they are concerned about environmental issues

such as the crisis with plastic bags in the destination, and socio-political issues, such as

discrimination against certain people or work ethics. Some global influences, such as

information communication technology that enables the younger generation to be linked to

15
services and the outer world, and easily access information, facilities, and places are also

found to have impacts on their travel decisions.

Their consumption patterns reflect the need to access rather than possess, express

their identity, and be concerned about ethics. Like Millennials, they do the research,

reading reviews and relying on eWoM, before making a purchase. They value the quality

of products and services and look for competitive prices. Currently, most Gen Zs are kids,

teenagers, and young adults. Interestingly, the statistics about the kids’ influence in the U.S.

showed that 71% of parents solicit and consider their kids’ opinions when making a

purchase, while 95% of parents seek their kids’ opinions when buying products for them.

This means that although their count is comparatively smaller, they exert a considerable

influence on older generations in their purchasing decision-making. According to Sladek

and Grabinger (2022), Gen Zs are socially aware, healthy and environmentally conscious,

and creative.

According to Wood (2013), four major trends characterize post-Millennials as

consumers. The first one is the focus on innovation and design features or aesthetics

differentiation as they have always lived in a market saturated with various products and

services. However, the fact that they have already been born to current technology and

innovative offers rather than witnessing the radical transformation and evolution of

industries such as retail, makes them expect less continuing future changes compared to

previous generations. The second trend among Gen Zs is the increased emphasis on

convenience and personalization in product attributes, delivery, experience, and marketing

efforts. In addition, Gen Zs along with Millennials, show considerably less concern

16
regarding consumer monitoring by large companies, viewing it as a necessary practice that

would help them deliver more personalized products. The third pattern in consumer

behavior of this cohort group is an underlying search for financial security. This makes

them less brand-loyal and more price-conscious. Lastly, they are characterized by the

tendency toward escapist consumption including entertainment, extreme sports, dining out,

and popularizing social communities and networks. This desire is facilitated by

technological advances such as virtual reality video games, greater mobility of devices,

and greater access to social networks.

Table 2.1 Comparison between Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z
Attributes Baby Gen X Gen Y Gen Z
Boomers 1965-1980 (Millennials) 1997-2010
1946-1964 1981-1996
Context • Post– • Political • Globalizat • Mobilit
World transition ion y and
War II • Capitalism • Economic multipl
stability e
• The realities
emergenc • Social
e of the networ
Internet ks
and digital • Digital
technologi natives
es
Values • Spendi • High • Utilitarian • Diversit
ng quality • Life-work y and
quality • Family- balance inclusio
time oriented • Connectiv n
with • Health ity • Self-
the • Financial express
family security ion
• Social • Spiritual • Realisti
interact values c
ion • Intellectual
developme
nt
17
Table 2.1 (continued)
Attributes Baby Gen X Gen Y Gen Z
Boomers 1965-1980 (Millennials) 1997-2010
1946-1964 1981-1996
Values • Advent
ure and
excite
ment

Behavior • Idealist • Pragmatic • Self- • Analyti

ic • Cautious oriented cal and
• Collect • Skeptical • Impulsive pragma
ivist • Individuali buying tic
• Univer stic • Globalist • Search
salists • Self-reliant • Collective for
• Benev learning Truth
olence • No
• Hard- identity
workin labeling
g • Radical
ly
inclusiv
e and
ethical
Travel • Have • Visiting • Relax and • Escapis
patterns fun iconic experienc m
• Advent landmarks, ea • Advent
urous museums different ure and
activiti and art lifestyle novelty
es galleries, • Trying • Followi
• Person and local food ng
al historical • Sightseein popular
challen sites and g and travel
ges monument festivals culture
• Cultura s
l and
novelty
experie
nces

18
Table 2.1 (continued)
Attri Baby Gen X Gen Y Gen Z
butes Boomers 1965-1980 (Millennials) 1997-2010
1946-1964 1981-1996
Purchasi • Tradition • Online • Brands • Innovati
ng al, shoppin and on and
behavior healthy, g for products design
and relaxati that features
quality on match • Reliance
foods • Rely on their on
• Price- eWoM personalit convenie
conscious • Luxury, y, nce
• Convenie brands, lifestyle, • Financial
nce status image, security
• Social and social • Escapis
interactio and m
n communit • Self-
• user- y values expressi
friendly • Healthier, on
store fresher
environm food
ent choices
• Customiz
able menu
options
• Rely on
eWoM
Source: McKinsey & Company (2018)

2.2 Airport Experience

Nowadays, understanding and shaping passenger experience is vital for airport

performance, particularly investing in enhancing facilities and services that contribute to

passenger satisfaction and, as a result, generate higher non-aeronautical revenue and

profitability for the airport (Jiang & Zhang, 2016). Passenger experience is believed to be

measured by performance indicators such as service quality at the airport (Merkert & Assaf,

19
2015). The concepts of customer service and perceived service quality are the key to

sustainable competitive advantage for the airport and, therefore, are the focus of this section.

2.2.1 Components of airport experience based on industrial standards. One of

the fundamental theories of service quality measurement proposed by Parasuraman et al.

(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) is SERVQUAL which implies the gap between

customer expectations and perceived service outcomes. SERVQUAL gives organizations

the ability to understand customer expectations and perceptions, compare themselves with

competitors and evaluate their own performance. It is not designed to identify customer

satisfaction post-factum, however, serves as a tool to determine the attributes driving

customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This conceptual model of service quality outlines

seven possible gaps in service: knowledge/listening gap, standards gap, communications

gap, perceptions gap, delivery gap, interpretation gap, and service gap (Figure 2.1).

SERVQUAL includes ten components based on which customers form service

expectations and evaluate perceived service quality. Those dimensions include access,

understanding/knowing the customer, communication, competence, credibility,

responsiveness, courtesy, reliability, security, and tangibles (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &

Berry, 1985).

20
Figure 2.1. SERVQUAL gaps. Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1985)

2.2.2 Components of airport experience based on scholarly works. Although

this general theoretical framework can be applied to any service-based organization, other

alternative theories are more specific to the airport context and are used to measure airport

performance. In attempts to extend the original SERVQUAL model, Fodness and Murray

(2007) contribute to the development of the ASQ framework by showing the importance

of the passenger-centered approach, servicescape, and activities facilitated by waiting time

and available services (Figure 2.2).

21
Figure 2.2. A preliminary conceptual model for airport service quality. Source: Fodness
& Murray (2007)
A wide variety of services in the airport value chain adds complexity and variation

to the attributes and dimensions of service quality and airport performance. For example,

international airport associations such as Airports Council International (ACI, 2022) and

Skytrax (Skytrax Ratings, 2022) assess performance by several service attributes. ACI

established Airport Service Quality (ASQ) – a globally recognized program that measures

overall passenger satisfaction and surveys passengers in 34 areas related to eight service

dimensions: airport facilities, airport environment, access, check-in, passport/personal

identification control, security, finding your way, and arrivals services (Isa, Ghaus, Hamid,

& Tan, 2020). Skytrax at the same time releases airport rankings based on key performance

indicators related to various areas from airport website, and wayfinding to terminal design,

cleanliness, seating, restrooms, airport facilities, accessibility, shopping, and dining

(Skytrax Ratings, 2022) (Table 2.1).

Another example is the study of the Melbourne Airport passenger experience, which

provides 30 components for airport service items. For simplicity of interpretation and

management, they are classified into three major categories: “essential airport services”,

22
“service items for comfort, convenience, and enjoyment”, and “services related to business

travel and baby changing facilities” (Jiang & Zhang, 2016, p.89). Moon et al. (2015)

examine the relationship between airport physical environments, customer emotion, and

satisfaction, where the physical environment is focused on tangible and visible

surroundings and consists of four variables such as facility aesthetics, layout accessibility,

functionality, and cleanliness. In van Oel (2013), the emphasis is also put on the design of

passenger areas and terminal buildings, particularly tangible elements such as exterior

factors of design, architecture, and accessibility, interior factors such as colors,

atmospherics, and materialization, and other factors such as layout, decoration, signage,

and greenery. Bezerra and Gomes (2015) include similar service attributes such as check-

in, security, convenience, ambiance, basic facilities, mobility, and prices. Alternatively,

Hong et al. (2020) categorize items into interactional quality with personnel, physical

environment, and convenience (Pandey, 2016).

Other studies are more customer-centric and include sensory, affective, creative

cognitive, physical, behavioral and lifestyle, and social-identity experiences in their

multidimensional concept of passenger experience (Verawati, Octora, Setiawan, &

Pradana, 2020). One of the dimensions of Bitner’s concept of servicescape is ambient

conditions, which include lighting, temperature, noise, scent, and other sensory factors

(Bitner, 1992).

23
Table 2.2 Industry and recent literature-based components of airport experience
Industry-based Components Literature-based Components

ASQ Skytrax PHL Passenger Jiang & Zhang Bezerra and

(2022) Survey (2022) (2016) Gomes (2015)
Access Getting to and Travel to PHL Surface N/A
- Public from the - Parking transport
transp Airport, Ease at the to/from airport
ort of Access airport
- Car - Off-side Airport parking
park Public parking
- Trolle transport - Rental Baggage
ys options, car cart/trolleys
efficiency and - Taxi or
prices limousin
e
Taxi - Ride
availability share
and prices - Hotel
shuttle
Availability of - Public
luggage transport
trolleys ation
(airside &
landside)
Check-in Check-In Clarity of airline Check-in Check-in
- Waiti facilities, check-in signage waiting time - Wait
ng queuing time at
time systems and Cleanliness/con Courtesy and the
- Court seating dition of airline helpfulness of check-
esy of check-in area check-in staff in
staff - Check-
Ease of finding Self check-in in
airline check-in facilities process
and wait time efficien
cy
Efficiency of - Courtes
airline luggage y and
check-in helpful
procedure ness of
check-
in staff

24
Table 2.2 (continued)
Industry-based Components Literature-based Components

ASQ Skytrax PHL Passenger Jiang & Zhang Bezerra and

(2022) Survey (2022) (2016) Gomes (2015)
Passport Immigration - N/A Waiting time at N/A
control queuing times / immigration
- Waiti system
ng Courtesy and
time Immigration - helpfulness of
- Court staff attitude immigration
esy of staff
staff
Security Waiting times Courtesy and Waiting time at Security
- Waiti at Security helpfulness of security check - Wait-
ng screening security time at
time screening Courtesy and security
- Court Family checkpoint staff helpfulness of checkp
esy of security security staff oints
staff screening Clearly - Thorou
- Feelin options communicated ghness
g of instructions at of
safe Courtesy and the security security
and Attitude of screening screeni
secure Security staff checkpoint ng
- Courtes
Perception of Cleanliness/con y and
security and dition of helpful
safety security check ness of
standards area security
staff
Wait time in - Feeling
security check of
line being
safe
and
secure

25
Table 2.2 (continued)
Industry-based Components Literature-based Components

ASQ Skytrax PHL Passenger Jiang & Zhang Bezerra and

(2022) Survey (2022) (2016) Gomes (2015)
Finding your Standard of Information Clear directional Mobility
way airport website Source and signs - Wayfin
- Flight information Needs ding
conne Flight - Flight
ction Standard of Roadway information informa
- Flight airport app signs/Wayfindin screens tion
infor g or Directions - Walkin
matio Wayfinding Flight transfer g
n and terminal Signs in parking distanc
- Walki signage facility Availability of e inside
ng power outlets the
distan Clarity of Usefulness/helpf termina
ce boarding calls ulness of flight l
and airport pa's info displays
Convenience
Flight info Ease of finding - Availab
screens - your way ility
clarity / quality through airport and
of information quality
Ease of making of food
Ease of transit connections facilitie
through airport with other s
flights
Location of
airline lounges Gate signage

26
Table 2.2 (continued)
Industry-based Components Literature-based Components

ASQ Skytrax PHL Passenger Jiang & Bezerra and

(2022) Survey (2022) Zhang (2016) Gomes (2015)
Airport Friendliness of Availability of Bank/ATM - Availab
facilities airport staff restrooms facilities ility
- Shopp and
ing Language Availability/eas Baby changing quality
- Food skills for e of use of facilities of
& airport staff connecting to stores
bever Wi-Fi Internet/Wi-Fi - Availab
age Washroom and access ility of
- Wi-fi shower Condition/cleanl Banks/
- Loun facilities in iness of Toilets ATM/E
ge terminal restrooms xchang
- Avail Moving e
ability Cleanliness of Condition/cleanl walkways and
& washrooms iness of seating escalators Basic Facilities
cleanl areas - Availab
iness Hygiene Boarding gate ility of
of standards Satisfaction with seating washro
toilets the retail and om/toil
- Court Tv and shopping Business ets
esy of entertainment experience lounge - Cleanli
staff facilities - Spendin ness of
g in Business washro
Quiet areas, stores center om/toil
day rooms, ets
hotel facility, Satisfaction with Children's
rest areas the food and playing area
beverage
Children's play experience Battery
area and recharge
facilities facilities

Airport
shopping

27
Table 2.2 (continued)
Industry-based Components Literature-based Components

ASQ Skytrax PHL Passenger Jiang & Zhang Bezerra and

(2022) Survey (2022) (2016) Gomes (2015)
Choice of - Spendin - Depart
shopping - tax g in bars, ure
free and other cafes and lounge
outlets restauran comfort
ts
Prices in shop Prices
outlets Amenity Use - Prices
- Lounge at food
Choice of bars, - Wheelch facilitie
cafes and air s
restaurants assistanc Prices at stores
e/mobilit
- Prices y
in bars, services
cafes - Indoor
and animal
restaura relief
nts area
- Mamava
Standard of /nursing
wifi service suite
- Outdoor
Power animal
charging relief
facilities area
Availability of
Telephone and parking
fax locations
Value for
Bureau de money for
change parking facilities
facilities
Safety/security
Atm facilities in parking
facility for self
and vehicle

28
Table 2. (continued)
Industry-based Components Literature-based Components

ASQ Skytrax PHL Passenger Jiang & Zhang Bezerra and

(2022) Survey (2022) (2016) Gomes (2015)
Airport Smoking Attractiveness Art displays Ambience
environment policy / of airport - Cleanli
- Clean smoking grounds Music in the ness of
liness lounges terminal airport
- Ambi Drop off space facilitie
ence Standards of in front of the Natural light in s
prm access and terminal the terminal - Therma
facilities l
Sensory Smoking area comfort
Terminal perceptions - Acousti
comfort, - Comfort Temperature in c
ambience and - Smell the terminal comfort
design - Brightne
ss
Terminal - Cleanlin
cleanliness, ess
floors, seating - Quietnes
and public s
areas
Overall
Seating satisfaction with
facilities the PHL
throughout experience
terminals
Arrival Baggage N/A Speed of N/A
services delivery times baggage
- Passp delivery
ort Priority
- Bagga baggage
ge delivery
reclai efficiency
m
- Custo Lost luggage
ms services
Sources: Isa, Ghaus, Hamid, & Tan (2020); World Airport Awards (2023); Bezerra &
Gomes (2015); (U.S.-Asia Center for Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2022)

29
 Among the dimensions of airport service quality, the passenger experience is

shaped only by several components. According to the study of San Francisco International

Airport (SFO) customer satisfaction, the key drivers of overall satisfaction were retail

shops and restaurants, artwork and exhibitions, signs and directions inside the terminal and

roadways, airport rental car services, Wi-Fi services, and overall cleanliness of SFO.

Among them, overall cleanliness, signage inside SFO, artwork, exhibitions, and restaurants

were found to be the most essential determinants of overall satisfaction (Singh, Yoo, &

Dalpatadu, 2019). At the same time, another research conducted in an attempt to measure

air passenger satisfaction and identify the major service attributes in the terminal reveals

that some service aspects have an insignificant impact on overall passenger satisfaction.

Some of them include the services related to the helpfulness of personnel, airport

environment, airport signage, condition of restrooms inside the terminal, and availability

of public transportation (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2009). Bogicevic et al. (2013) provide insights

into major satisfiers, dissatisfiers, and passenger-oriented performance factors of ASQ.

Their findings identify cleanliness and a pleasant environment to spend time in as the major

drivers of passenger satisfaction. In contrast, unclear signposting and inadequate dining

offers were claimed to be the major dissatisfiers in the airport setting (Bogicevic, Yang,

Bilgihan, & Bujisic, 2013).

2.2.3 Determinants of the airport experience. Bezerra and Gomes (2015) in their

study based on the data collected at the main Brazilian airport emphasize the importance

of determinants, such as passenger characteristics in measuring passenger satisfaction with

airport service quality. Those included the type of traveler, trip purpose, and other context-

30
related characteristics (Fodness & Murray, 2007). Determinants such as age, nationality,

gender, trip purpose, and mobility were found to affect overall satisfaction. For instance,

the research at Melbourne Airport showed that older passengers tend to have higher

expectations of service quality and actual satisfaction compared to younger passengers

(Jiang & Zhang, 2016). Moreover, passengers’ earlier arrival at the airport may result in

higher overall satisfaction, as it allows them to avoid large lines at the security checkpoints

and related anxiety. According to the results of the study, passengers arriving at the airport

more than 3 hours before the flight departure time were 20.8% more likely to be satisfied,

compared to passengers arriving more than 2 hours but less than 3 hours before flight

departure time. Moreover, early arrival, convenience, and pastime are the main motivations

for making purchases at the airport, since the passengers’ primary purpose at the airport is

not shopping (Omar & Kent, 2001). Passengers’ perceptions of the ambient conditions and

prices have also been recognized as important factors for airport service quality. In addition,

the frequency of flights among passengers was also found as a determinant of satisfaction.

For instance, less frequent flyers that traveled no more than 2 times in the last year are 15.7%

more likely to have higher overall satisfaction with the airport when compared to

passengers who traveled more often (Bezerra & Gomes, 2015). Passenger satisfaction

survey in 15 airports in the USA and Canada conducted by Kramer, Bothner, and Spiro

(National Academies of Sciences, 2013) suggests that the most important factors

contributing to customer experience include courtesy of staff, cleanliness, processing times,

concession choices, and gate experience. However, some factors are out of the managerial

control of the airport, such as delays during arrival at the airport, parking congestion, delays

in public transportation, bad weather conditions, and flight cancellations.

31
2.3 Food and Beverage/Retailing Behavior and Experience

The non-aeronautical sector is critical for airport profitability as it generates

relatively high-profit margins and, according to ACI (2018), accounts for more than 40%

of total revenue. Therefore, increasing commercial profit by growing passenger

consumption through a deeper understanding of their purchasing behavior and patterns,

can increase passenger satisfaction and enhance their airport F&B and retail experience

(Choi & Park, 2022). According to Bezerra and Gomes (2020), the increasing levels of

satisfaction among passengers and positive airport experience make them less likely to

complain and influence passengers’ intentions to engage in commercial activities at the

airport, particularly in food and beverage and retailing businesses. In addition, Kramer,

Bothner, and Spiro found that highly satisfied passengers are more likely to spend 45%

more than dissatisfied passengers (National Academies of Sciences, 2013).

Some of the general theories on consumer behavior and psychology include the

theory of planned behavior (TPB) originally proposed by Ajzen in (1985). It is considered

one of the most prominent and widely recognized frameworks for predicting and

explaining the socio-psychological behavior of consumers and is an extended version of

the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) which had certain limitations (Ajzen, 1991).

According to the theory, an individual’s attitude and subjective norms shape behavioral

intention. An individual’s attitude is based on behavioral beliefs and includes a positive or

negative perception of engaging in a certain behavior (Ajzen & Albarracin, 2011).

Subjective norms imply an individual’s normative beliefs and perceived social pressure to

engage or not in the behavior (Yuzhanin & Fisher, 2016).

32
Figure 2.3. Theory of planned behavior. Source: Ajzen (1991)

Ulker-Demirel & Ciftci (2020) discuss TPB in the context of tourism, leisure, and

hospitality management and concluded that there is still not enough research to analyze the

effect of intentions on actual behavior in tourism, leisure, and hospitality fields. They refer

to three major studies (Goh & Jie, 2019; Joseph & Wearing, 2014; Goh & Lee, 2018) that

focused on consumer generations and their motivational, attitudinal factors and behavioral

intentions in different aspects. A more recent study (Kasim, Winter, Liu, Keebler, &

Spence, 2021) applies TPB as a theoretical foundation in reviewing the factors affecting

passengers’ behavioral intentions on using biometrics at airports. Nevertheless, TPB has

never been directly used in analyzing passengers’ behavior and intentions in the context of

airport retail and food and beverage shopping.

2.3.1 Components of food and beverage/retailing experience. Although the

results of the survey in an international airport (Freathy & O'Connell, 2012) suggest that

61.5% of respondents' time was dedicated to shopping (20.3 mins on average), and 27% (9
33
mins on average) of the time in the airport's bars and restaurants, other studies suggest that

not all passengers necessarily undertake commercial activities. Hence, Omar and Kent

(2001) classify airport shopping travelers into three types: the shopping traveler, the

browser traveler, and the fast-track traveler. The products that passengers usually purchase

are related to luxury goods or travel necessities and their purchasing is influenced by time

pressure and impulse buying tendency, particularly if the store is crowded and the quantity

of items is limited.

There are several studies describing the components of food and beverage, along

with retailing experience and consumption behavior of passengers. Chiappa, Martin, &

Roman (2016) include 13 items such as price, quality of product, variety of food,

presentation and originality of dishes, location convenience, cleanliness and internal

atmospherics, friendliness of staff, speed of service, and provision of entertainment as the

major dimensions. Another study by Lin and Chen (2013) reveals that passenger shopping

motivations positively affect commercial activities at the airport including dining and

leisure activities, particularly motivated by favorable price and quality, culture and

atmosphere, and communication. Alternative studies reviewed the airport passenger

landside retail experience in the following categories: landside and airside retail locations,

macro-level experience, non-retail locations, payment methods, purchase type, and

interaction with purchase (Livingstone, Popovic, Kraal, & Kirk, 2012).

2.3.2 Determinants of food and beverage/retailing experience. Consistent with

other researchers (Chiappa, Martin, & Roman, 2016), certain demographic, psychographic

and socio-economic factors perform as determinants of airport food and beverage/shopping

34
behavior and experience. For example, the authors mention age, gender, nationality,

occupation, and income as traits that can partially explain the spending and consumption

behavior of passengers. According to the determinants of airport retail revenue literature

review by Chen et al. (2020), which covers 50 studies from 1998 to 2018, 26 factors were

identified and grouped into five categories related to the airport, passenger demographics,

travel patterns, psychology, and resources. Chen, Wu, Koo, & Douglas (2020) mention

such factors as the allocation of bigger airport space to commercial areas, comfortable

relaxing and familiar environment of the airport, higher passenger traffic, accessible and

convenient location of food and beverage concessions, and retail stores, high level of

service as well as product characteristics such as price level, brand image, and quality, as

determinants that positively affect passenger decision to spend, increase their spending and

airport retail revenue.

Several studies were consistent with certain passenger demographics, such as age,

gender, and nationality, that pre-determine their decision to spend and the amount to spend.

For instance, younger passengers are more likely to shop than the middle-aged group;

however, the latter tends to spend more once the decision to purchase was made. Despite

having a higher purchasing power, older passengers (aged 65+) tend to be less satisfied

with F&B offers compared to younger travelers (Chiappa, Martin, & Roman, 2016).

Moreover, elderly passengers are claimed to be less at ease in airport environments and

tend to stay closer to their assigned gate, which may explain their low engagement with

salespeople and facilities (Castillo-Manzano, 2010).

35
 The research by Freathy and O’Connell (2012) shows that demographics, such as

age and gender, along with travel characteristics, such as the composition of the group,

travel purpose, frequency, and duration of the visit, influence shopping behavior.

Considering gender, 63% of female passengers spent more than one hour in the commercial

area, whereas 46% of males spent less than 10 minutes shopping.

On top of the findings that females tend to spend more time shopping than males,

the study by Lu (2014) also suggests that males prefer products of well-known brands and

tend to shop impulsively, while females opt for entertainment products related to pleasure,

relaxation, and novelty.

According to Freathy and O’Connell (2012), passengers who travel alone, business

travelers, and domestic passengers were also found to spend less time in the commercial

area and actually shopping. Additionally, the duration of the trip also pre-determined the

shopping behavior, as the length is the trip, the longer passengers tend to spend time in

commercial areas. The findings are consistent with other studies (Graham, 2008), where

younger passengers who travel several times a year for leisure were found to spend more,

while low-cost carrier passengers were frequent users of food/beverage establishments at

the airport. Manzano (2010) also agrees that frequent flyers are more likely to make a

purchase in retail stores or consume food/beverages at the airport due to their familiarity

with airport environments and feeling of ease in such facilities.

2.3.3 Shopping psychology and behavior. According to the literature reviewed,

most of the previous studies focus on passenger shopping behavior, intentions to purchase,

and spending patterns. For instance, the research conducted at international airports in
36
Taiwan (Lu, 2014) reveals that passengers’ purchases at the airport are mostly driven by

pre-planned intentions and influenced by the commercial environment. Moreover, the

personal characteristics of passengers and their travel experiences pre-determine various

shopping behaviors. For example, it is believed that passengers with higher disposable

income tend to spend more at the airport; however, Lu (2014) found that the increase in

household income decreases pre-planned shopping intentions.

Another study at Incheon International Airport in South Korea (Choi & Park, 2022)

shows that flight delays increase the pre-flight expenditure in duty-free stores to a certain

level unless the flight delay is excessive. Dwell time is also found to be essential in airport

retailing. Wu & Chen (2012) define dwell time as the time between passenger arrival at the

airport check-in area and departure time of the flight when passengers are most likely to

look around and shop at the airport to pass the time. According to experts, passengers are

also more likely to engage in food and beverage consumption in their dwell time. Manzano

(2010) through his investigation shows that a long waiting time before embarking makes

passengers seek escape from boredom and satisfy their food and beverage needs. Hence,

once the decision to consume food/beverages is made, the amount of spending increases

with the waiting time.

Choi and Park (2022) also investigate the characteristics of not only passengers but

flights that have a strong effect on purchasing behavior. For example, they find that

although low-cost carriers have lower total spending, this can be attributed to the airport’s

policy of assigning those flights to inconvenient shopping locations.

37
Freathy and O’Connell (2012) reveal that the majority of purchases were made by surveyed

passengers for personal use rather than for a gift. Moreover, the majority of retail purchases

appear to be pre-planned, whereas gift items tend to be more on the impulse purchase side.

Another topic related to passenger shopping behavior at the airport is impulsive

shopping and its nuances. Chen et al. (2020) in their literature review emphasize the

importance of encouraging passengers to engage in impulsive shopping to increase revenue

and facilitate positive emotions about airport shopping while addressing passengers'

concerns regarding the perceived disadvantage of shopping at the airport due to their

impulsive purchase. One of the typically perceived disadvantages of airport shopping

might be passenger belief that the price level of airport goods is much higher than outside

of the terminal.

Although extensive literature covers topics related to airport shopping and

food/beverage, consumer behavior, motivations, intentions, and spending patterns, the

studies are limited in considering the generational factor in behavioral differences among

passengers in the international airport context.

2.4 Information Source and Search Behavior

Information acquisition and alternative sources of information among travelers

remain one of major topics of interest for marketers, particularly in the tourism and

hospitality industry. Airports are especially expected to offer effective communication of

various information to passengers, from flight and airline information to basic wayfinding

and signage around the airport grounds and terminals. Cave, Blackler, Popovic, and Kraal

(2013), for instance, state that confusion and hard airport navigation decisions may
38
contribute to passenger dissatisfaction, missed flights, or delays, while familiarity with the

airport is positively correlated with intuitive navigation. Moreover, being a part of the

hospitality industry and an important economic unit for a country, international airports are

expected to provide world-class customer care and service and increase their non-

aeronautical revenue. Therefore, it is inevitable for the airport to understand passenger

information needs and information search behavior to achieve this efficiency and enhance

performance.

Some of the early theories include the consumer information acquisition and

processing model proposed by Assael (1984) which shows information search as a

problem-solving task in purchase situations. Thus, by making this problem-solving stage

easier and seamless for the passengers and encouraging the subsequent purchase and

consumption stage, airport marketers need to understand passenger information needs and

search behavior.

Figure 2.4. Consumer information acquisition and processing model. Source: Assael
(1984), Vogt & Fesenmaier (1998, p.552)
39
 However, Vogt & Fesenmaier (1998) claim that the framework is oversimplistic

and proposed an alternative conceptual model which postulates that an individual’s

decision-making is based on functional information search needs, along with the visual and

aesthetic needs in the search process.

According to the authors (Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998), although information in the

tourism context is collected primarily for functional reasons such as trip planning, there

can be other needs such as leisure and recreation-based motivations (e.g., information for

visual, entertainment, social, innovation, and creativity purposes). Alternatively, Luo, Feng,

and Cai (2008) in their investigation of tourist information search behavior, apply the

theory of consumer behavior (Berkman & Gilson, 1986) as the conceptual model.

Nowadays, there are various sources of information and marketing channels that

companies use to communicate with their customers and share information, such as the

Internet, social media, radio, newspapers, television, magazines, journals, etc. (Beldona,

2005). Peterson and Merino (2003) postulate that Internet has a major impact on consumer

information search behavior. Particularly with the development of the Internet and its

global reach, digital marketing channels such as search engines, email marketing, social

media platforms, and mobile apps have evolved the ways consumers are looking for

information and marketers providing it (Beldona, 2005). The author suggests that when

comparing Baby Boomers and Gen X, the older generation has reported slightly higher

increases in travel information searches than younger cohorts, which can be attributed to

retirement planning initiatives. According to another research (Huang, Petrick,

40
Benckendorff, Moscardo, & Pendergast, 2009), Baby Boomers rely on traditional sources

of information such as newspapers.

Dabija, Brandusa, and Tipi (2018) claim that Gen Xers are best reached through

marketing channels such as travel advisors, travel packages, price discounts, and coupons.

Other studies (Littrell, Ma, & Halepete, 2005) describe Gen Xers as realists, who tend to

have a high level of education and are believed to rely more and more on recommendations

from online sources such as blogs, forums, or social networks (Acar, 2014). Unlike

Millennials, Gen Xers tend to be more cautious and responsible when they use information

obtained from social media or other online sources, as they only became users of mobile

devices and modern communication technology at an older age (Dabija, Brandusa, & Tipi,

2018). Moreover, Gen Xers are less familiar with newer sophisticated technologies that are

more accepted by digital natives of the younger generation.

Millennials, at the same time, are defined as digital natives accustomed to the use

of technologies and e-commerce. Moore (2012) claims that their broad experience and

knowledge of the Internet tend to influence their search for information using Internet-

based marketing channels, including social media, blogs, e-mails, mobile apps, and review

platforms. Moreover, Valentine and Powers (2013) support many other researchers who

claim that representatives of this generational cohort dislike marketing efforts through

conventional methods, and they are more willing to trust the opinions of their friends,

relatives, or other customers and eWoM (electronic word of mouth) when making a

purchase decision. This group prefers collective learning and constantly expresses their

opinion, in a way that they can influence other people. They enjoy when their knowledge

41
and opinion is considered an expert and they rely on their peers’ opinions. Their strong

urge to position and express themselves and share their opinion, feedback, and experience,

whether positive or negative, towards a product or service makes them use both traditional

and electronic means, such as eWoM (Moreno, Lafuente, Avila, & Moreno, 2017). Martin

(2005) claims that credibility and relevance play a major role in their buying decisions and

they trust the posts on their friends’ social media. Rahman (2015) also suggests that

Millennials are attracted to ads offering discounts and innovative interactive displays.

Moreover, the author points out that traditional offline advertising such as billboards and

banners remained attractive to them.

Younger generations, particularly Gen Zs, also tend to rely heavily on eWoM in

their travel decisions, especially on social media reviews. Social media represents the ideal

platform for finding and exchanging information among Gen Zs, and they tend to compare,

rank, and rate tourist destinations to establish preferences (Liu, Wang, Zhang, & Qiao,

2022). According to McKinsey&Company (Francis & Hoefel, 2018), Gen Z is recognized

as a hypercognitive generation capable of collecting and cross-referencing many sources

of information. Moreover, they are highly global-minded and receptive to new cultures,

innovations, technologies, and experiences. They are active users of social media networks

which makes them highly connected to trends and people around the world. They do not

access information through newspapers or T.V. anymore, rather new alternative methods

such as the Internet and social media (Sladek & Grabinger, 2022).

Although the previous literature includes several studies dedicated to information

sources and consumer information search behavior in tourism and recreation contexts,

42
there is limited research conducted to investigate information sources and searches in the

airport context, recognizing different information needs and information search patterns

among distinct generational cohorts.

43
 3. DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH METHOD

The study utilized the secondary data collected through the distribution of a

passenger questionnaire at the PHL International Airport. The questionnaire used a

probability systematic sampling method. The survey was designed to evaluate passenger

satisfaction with different areas of the airport and included both quantitative and qualitative

questions. The quantitative approach incorporated a Likert scale questionnaire, which

provided the data for the analysis. A Likert scale was used to evaluate the degree of

satisfaction with different airport-related items, where passengers indicated their

satisfaction from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7 (completely satisfied). Some items covered in

the questionnaire include travel means to PHL (i.e., parking at the airport, public

transportation, rental car), check-in and TSA (i.e., clarity of airline check-in signage,

cleanliness/condition of the airline check-in area, courtesy and helpfulness of security

screening checkpoint staff, clearly communicated instructions at the security screening

checkpoint), airport facilities and environment (i.e., availability of power outlets,

availability of restrooms, availability/ease of use of connecting to Wi-Fi) and other airport

related items. The survey also included questions related to the sensory or perceptual

experience of passengers (i.e., brightness, smell, sounds, comfort), their shopping behavior

and spending patterns (i.e., retail stores and food/beverage stores), as well as their

experience at other airports (within and outside of the U.S.).

Out of 4050 valid responses recorded during the survey, which targeted departing

and connecting PHL passengers aged 18 and above, 4003 valid responses were used in this

study, extracting the population representing four generations of interest (Baby Boomers,

44
Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z). Among the responses relevant to this study, 20.8% are Baby

Boomers, 25.2% are Gen X, 34.7% are Gen Y and 19.3% are Gen Z. The sample

distribution is close to the population distribution in the United States by generation in

2021 (Duffin, 2022). Concerning gender, 56.4% of them were female, 41.6% were male,

0.8% were non-binary/third gender, 0.2% were other, and 1.0% preferred not to say. The

majority of the respondents (96.3%) came from the U.S. and 66.0% of them reported

traveling for leisure or visiting friends and relatives (VFR). Approximately 73% of

respondents were repeated passengers at PHL and around half of the respondents (50.1%)

traveled alone.

The study included regression analysis, a single-factor ANOVA, and cross-

tabulations. Regression analysis is a statistical method used to detect the relationship

between dependent and independent variables. It answers the following questions: Which

factors matter most? Which can we ignore? How do those factors interact with one another?

How certain are we about all these factors? (Gallo, 2015). Specifically, t statistic is used

in a t-test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between variables.

For example, it is used to determine the airport-related components that affect the overall

satisfaction of PHL passengers across generations.

A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is also used as a statistical method to

estimate the difference between the mean values of variables. The F statistic is a result of

the ANOVA test which allows for determining the variability between groups and within

groups. It is utilized in the study to detect any significant difference between the mean

satisfaction of PHL passengers with retail/shopping, and food/beverage experience.

45
 Finally, cross-tabulation or contingency (two-dimensional) tables are used in the

analysis of the relationship between multiple variables. The Chi-square statistic is used for

testing the statistical significance of the cross-tabulation table. It shows whether the

variables are dependent or independent and whether the test is statistically significant.

Results are “statistically significant” at the .05 or 5% level. The study relied on SPSS and

Excel as the main statistical tools.

46
 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Experience at PHL

A single-factor ANOVA analysis was used to derive the difference in average

overall satisfaction with PHL experience among the four generations and indicated a p-

value of 0.03 and an F statistic of 3.0, which implies that the test is statistically significant

and there is a significant difference in mean values of groups. Even though the difference

in average satisfaction is not large, Baby Boomers showed a slightly higher overall

satisfaction score (5.42 out of 7, where 1 – not satisfied at all and 7 – completely satisfied)

compared to other generational cohorts. It was followed by Gen Z with 5.31, and the lowest

satisfaction rate was reported by Gen Y (5.27) and Gen X (5.26).

The survey breaks down the overall experience at PHL into various areas and

measures passenger satisfaction with each of them separately. It included 24 items in 3

main fields: related to experience outside of the airport, outside of the terminal (up to

security check), and inside of the terminal (past security check). Overall, the results show

that Baby Boomers were consistently more satisfied with different items of airport

experience across all three fields, while Gen Xers were least satisfied with experiences

outside of the airport. Gen Zs were found to be least satisfied with their experience outside

of the terminal, and inside of the terminal along with Millennials. The test was statistically

significant with a p-value<0.05 in the following items: roadway signs/wayfinding or

directions, drop-off space in front of the terminal, availability of parking, clarity of airline

check-in signage, cleanliness/condition of the airline check-in area, ease of finding airline

check-in and wait time, the efficiency of airline luggage check-in procedure,

47
usefulness/helpfulness of flight info displays, courtesy and helpfulness of security

screening checkpoint staff, clearly communicated instructions at the security screening

checkpoint, cleanliness/condition of security check area, wait time in security check line,

availability of power outlets, availability of restrooms, availability/ease of connecting to

Wi-Fi, condition/cleanliness of restrooms, condition/cleanliness of seating areas, ease of

finding your way through the airport, and gate signage (Table 4.1). At the same time, the

intergenerational difference was not significant in the following areas: the attractiveness of

airport grounds, value for money for parking facilities, safety/security in parking facility

for self and vehicle, signs in the parking facility, and ease of making connections with other

flights.

Table 4.1. ANOVA results of satisfaction with experience at PHL

How would you rate your satisfaction with your experience outside of the PHL airport?
Gen Gen Gen BB F-statistic p-
Z Y X value
Attractiveness of airport grounds 4.95 4.93 4.94 5.09 1.778 0.149
Roadway signs/ Wayfinding or Directions 5.33 5.31 5.29 5.52 3.531 0.014

Drop off space in front of the terminal 5.14 5.19 5.23 5.42 4.221 0.005
Availability of parking 4.62 4.61 4.36 4.36 3.177 0.023
Value for money for parking facilities 4.34 4.24 4.15 4.26 0.993 0.395

48
Table 4.1. (continued)
How would you rate your satisfaction with your experience outside of the PHL
airport?
Gen Gen Gen BB F p-
Z Y X value
Signs in parking facility 4.97 4.90 4.90 4.90 0.213 0.888

Clarity of airline check in signage 5.37 5.49 5.6 5.65 5.274 0.001

How would you rate your satisfaction with your experience outside of the terminal (up to
security check)?
Gen Gen Gen BB F p-
Z Y X value
Cleanliness/condition of airline check in area 5.28 5.37 5.38 5.67 8.875 <0.001

Ease of finding airline check in and wait time 5.65 5.7 5.77 5.86 3.081 0.026

Efficiency of airline luggage check-in 5.48 5.47 5.63 5.81 6.712 <0.001
procedure
Usefulness/helpfulness of flight info displays 5.6 5.63 5.77 5.93 9.257 <0.001

Courtesy and helpfulness of security 5.29 5.51 5.64 5.8 14.198 <0.001
screening checkpoint staff
Clearly communicated instructions at the 5.48 5.54 5.66 5.76 5.21 0.001
security screening checkpoint
Cleanliness/condition of security check area 5.21 5.29 5.39 5.61 9.644 <0.001

Wait time in security check line 5.53 5.78 5.84 5.99 10.778 <0.001
How would you rate your satisfaction with the inside of your terminal at PHL (past
security)?
Gen Gen Gen BB F p-
Z Y X value
Availability of power outlets 4.74 4.83 4.89 5.09 4.072 0.007
Availability of restrooms 5.67 5.61 5.78 5.96 10.783 <0.001
Availability/ease of connecting to Wi-Fi 5.23 5.34 5.53 5.59 6.565 <0.001
Condition/cleanliness of restrooms 4.81 4.82 4.96 5.22 9.1 <0.001
Condition/cleanliness of seating areas 5.26 5.22 5.28 5.52 6.723 <0.001
Ease of finding your way through airport 5.88 5.84 5.98 6.05 6.048 <0.001

Ease of making connections with other flights 5.32 5.32 5.47 5.45 1.56 0.197

Gate signage 5.82 5.87 6.06 6.08 10.124 <0.001

Note: The value in bold indicates significance at a 5% level
49
 A regression analysis was conducted to determine independent variables that have

an impact on overall satisfaction with PHL experience across four generations. As a result,

satisfaction with retail and shopping experience was found to influence the overall

satisfaction in the case of Gen Zs, Gen Y, and Gen Xers (Table 4.2). Satisfaction with food

and beverage experience was found to influence only all four generations’ overall

satisfaction with PHL (Table 4.3).

Table 4.2. Regression results with satisfaction with the retail and shopping experience at
PHL as an independent variable
Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
R Square 0.0101 0.017 0.015 0.0004
P-value 0.01 9.52E-07 0.00011 0.575
Note: The value in bold indicates significance at a 5% level

Table 4.3. Regression results with satisfaction with the food and beverage experience at
PHL as an independent variable
Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
R Square 0.023 0.044 0.064 0.018
P-value 1.88E-05 2.76E-15 3.01E-16 0.00011
Note: The value in bold indicates significance at a 5% level

A regression analysis (Table 4.4) also revealed that among all the factors

contributing to overall satisfaction with the experience at PHL, Baby Boomers were found

to be influenced by gate signage (p-value=0.022), usefulness/helpfulness of flight info

displays (p-value= 0.017), cleanliness/condition of security check area (p-value=0.0002)

and waiting time in security check line (p-value=0.0005) (Table 4.4). Gen X’s experience,

at the same time, was impacted by the clarity of airline check-in signage (p-value=0.001),

usefulness/helpfulness of flight info displays (p-value=0.047), and cleanliness/condition of

security check area (p-value=0.001). Millennials are influenced by 7 factors including

50
drop-off space in front of the terminal (p-value=0.004), signs in parking facility (p-

value=0.022), clarity of airline check-in signage (p-value=0.008), the efficiency of airline

luggage check-in procedure (p-value=0.016), condition/cleanliness of restrooms (p-

value=0.0003), ease of making connections with other flights (p-value=0.017), and gate

signage (p-value=0.0003). Finally, Gen Zs are influenced by the cleanliness/condition of

airline check-in area (p-value=0.0006), usefulness/helpfulness of flight info displays (p-

value=0.012), clearly communicated instructions at the security screening checkpoint (p-

value=0.034), cleanliness/condition of security check area (p-value=0.024), availability of

restrooms (p-value=0.039), ease of finding your way through airport (p-value=0.0002), and

gate signage (p-value=0.002).

Overall, the findings provide evidence that there is an intergenerational difference

in airport experience among PHL passengers, particularly experience inside the terminal,

and various factors affect this experience depending on the generational cohort.

Table 4.4. Regression analysis coefficients with components of airport experience as

independent variables
How would you rate your satisfaction with BB GX GY GZ
your experience outside of the PHL airport?
Attractiveness of airport grounds 0.149 0.172 0.162 0.140
(0.024) (0.023) (0.020) (0.026)
Roadway signs/ Wayfinding or Directions -0.005 -0.009 0.004 0.010
(0.023) (0.022) (0.019) (0.025)
Drop off space in front of the terminal 0.014 0.022 0.052*** 0.005
(0.021) (0.021) (0.018) (0.024)

51
Table 4.4. (continued)
How would you rate your satisfaction with BB GX GY GZ
your experience outside of the PHL airport?
Availability of parking -0.018 -0.026 -0.008 0.007
(0.033) (0.031) (0.024) (0.037)
Value for money for parking facilities -0.008 0.026 0.013 -0.052
(0.036) (0.036) (0.028) (0.040)
Safety/security in parking facility for self and -0.003 0.017 -0.002 0.055*
vehicle
(0.033) (0.031) (0.023) (0.034)
Signs in parking facility -0.018 -0.045 -0.057** -0.056
(0.035) (0.032) (0.025) (0.037)
Clarity of airline check in signage 0.029 0.067*** 0.044*** 0.094
(0.022) (0.020) (0.017) (0.022)
R-square 0.091 0.136 0.130 0.117
Sample size 831 1008 1391 773
How would you rate your satisfaction with BB GX GY GZ
your experience outside of the terminal (up to
security check)?
Cleanliness/condition of airline check in area 0.132 0.115 0.098 0.107***
(0.030) (0.027) (0.021) (0.031)
Ease of finding airline check in and wait time -0.029 0.034 0.034* 0.042*
(0.027) (0.025) (0.019) (0.027)
Efficiency of airline luggage check-in procedure -0.008 -0.020 - -0.030
0.030***
(0.017) (0.016) (0.013) (0.020)
Usefulness/helpfulness of flight info displays 0.054** 0.041** 0.074 0.060***
(0.023) (0.021) (0.017) (0.024)
Courtesy and helpfulness of security screening -0.003 0.029 -0.003 0.044
checkpoint staff
(0.030) (0.027) (0.023) (0.032)
Clearly communicated instructions at the -0.009 -0.018 -0.015 -0.071**
security screening checkpoint

(0.032) (0.031) (0.024) (0.033)

Cleanliness/condition of security check area 0.136*** 0.104*** 0.120 0.079**
(0.036) (0.032) (0.025) (0.035)

52
Table 4.4. (continued)
How would you rate your satisfaction with BB GX GY GZ
your experience outside of the terminal (up to
security check)?
Wait time in security check line - -0.039* -0.017 -0.017
0.104***
(0.030) (0.025) (0.021) (0.028)
R-square 0.125 0.159 0.163 0.130
Sample size 831 1008 1391 773
How would you rate your satisfaction with BB GX GY GZ
the inside of your terminal at PHL (past
security)?
Availability of power outlets 0.017 -0.026* 0.008 0.001
(0.014) (0.014) (0.012) (0.019)
Availability of restrooms 0.020 0.043* 0.019 0.050**
(0.023) (0.022) (0.017) (0.024)
Availability/ease of connecting to Wi-Fi -0.004 0.005 -0.001 -0.003
(0.013) (0.012) (0.010) (0.017)
Condition/cleanliness of restrooms 0.015 0.023 0.053*** 0.000
(0.018) (0.018) (0.015) (0.021)
Condition/cleanliness of seating areas 0.302 0.319 0.256 0.210
(0.025) (0.025) (0.021) (0.030)
Ease of finding your way through airport 0.205 0.160 0.190 0.129***
(0.032) (0.032) (0.025) (0.035)
Ease of making connections with other flights -0.018* 0.015 - 0.003
0.024***
(0.012) (0.012) (0.010) (0.015)
Gate signage 0.071** 0.061** 0.090*** 0.097***
(0.031) (0.033) (0.025) (0.031)
R-square 0.400 0.378 0.389 0.267
Sample size 831 1008 1391 773
Notes: (1) *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. (2)
Standard errors are presented in parentheses.
4.2 Retail and Shopping Experience

Among the four generations, Gen X showed the highest percentage of people who

used retail (59.0%), while the majority of passengers who haven’t used retail shopping

53
stores belonged to the generation of Baby Boomers (48.0%) (Table 4.5). At the same time,

over half of the representatives of Gen Y and Gen Z used retail establishments. The Pearson

Chi-Square for the test is 44,027 with a degree of freedom of 21 and an asymptotic

significance of 0.002. It can be partially explained by the fact that Baby Boomers might

have limited mobility and familiarity with the airport since over 30% of them indicated that

it was their first visit to the airport in the last 12 months.

Table 4.5. Percentage of respondents who used/not used retail and food/beverage stores
by generation
Retail/shopping stores Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
used?
Yes 54.9% 53.6% 59.0% 52.0%
No 45.1% 46.4% 41.0% 48.0%
Note: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row

Table 4.6 shows the results of a one-way ANOVA test, where although the

difference in the average satisfaction with retail and shopping experience at PHL among

generations is not significant, Baby Boomer passengers have higher average satisfaction

compared to other generational cohorts (5.26). In addition, Generations Y and Z had a

similar pattern of the lowest average satisfaction of 4.97 and 4.91, respectively. The

ANOVA model also supports the findings with a p-value of 0.001 and F of 5.32, which

indicates that there is a difference between the mean values of groups, and the test is

statistically significant.

54
Table 4.6. ANOVA results of satisfaction with retail and shopping experience
Groups Count Sum Average Variance F p-value
BB 432 2272 5.259 2.141 5.32 0.001
GX 595 3056 5.136 2.333
GY 745 3705 4.973 2.198
GZ 424 2083 4.913 2.170
Note: The value in bold indicates the largest in the column

As can be derived from Table 4.7, there is a pattern in retail and shopping

expenditure among generations. For example, all four generations tend to spend less than

$10 or between $10 and $30 on retail and shopping. In particular, the majority of Gen Z

tended to spend less than $10 per person while at the airport, while Baby Boomers and Gen

X tended to spend between $10 to $30. Additionally, Gen Xers were more likely to spend

between $30 to $100 compared to other generations. Gen Y and Gen X were more inclined

to make purchases totaling $100 to $300 per person. Pearson's Chi-Square statistic for the

test was 30.99 with a degree of freedom of 15 and an asymptotic significance of 0.009,

which indicated that the association between variables is significant.

Table 4.7. Cross-tabulation of the percentage of expenditure on retail/shopping per person

while at PHL
Approximately how much did you Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
spend on retail and shopping per person
while in the airport? mn1
Less than $10 50.9% 45.8% 36.8% 42.6%
$10 - $29.99 33.7% 36.8% 40.0% 39.4%
$30 - $49.99 10.1% 9.5% 14.5% 10.9%
$50 - $99.99 3.8% 5.5% 6.9% 5.6%
$100 - $299.99 0.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4%
$300 and above 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2%
Note: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row

55
 When investigating the types of retail businesses visited by different generations, a

few distinguishable patterns can be outlined. Overall, gift shops and books/magazines

stores were found to be the most popular across all four generations (Table 4.8).

Particularly, Baby Boomers were found to have the most interest in book/magazine stores

(53.0%), while gift shops were popular mostly among Gen Y (34.5%) along with

electronics (9.8%). On top of that, Gen Xers, although also interested in book/magazine

stores (46.6%) and gift shops (30.6%), tend to visit clothing stores (7.6%) more than other

generations. A higher percentage of passengers belonging to Gen Z were interested in

toiletries/cosmetics (20.2%), electronics (10%), and clothing stores (8.2%). The chi-square

test resulted in 80.4 with a degree of freedom of 12 and a p-value close to 0. The results

support the previous studies (Omar, Sallehuddin, Hafizah, & Hassan, 2016), where

younger generations, particularly Gen Y, were described as a cohort that is characterized

by increased connectivity and digital natives. Overall, the results suggest that the

intergenerational difference in retail and shopping behavior of passengers exists and can

be explained by various factors, including intergenerational theory (Strauss & Howe, 1991).

Table 4.8. Cross-tabulation of retail and shopping businesses visited

Which retail and shopping Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
business did you visit?
Gift shops 31.4% 34.5% 30.6% 28.1%
Book/Magazine shops 30.2% 33.7% 46.6% 53.0%
Clothing 8.2% 6.7% 7.6% 6.7%
Electronics 10.0% 9.8% 5.3% 5.5%
Toiletries/Cosmetics 20.2% 15.4% 9.9% 6.7%
Note: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row

56
4.3 Food and Beverage Experience

In general, the data showed that passengers tend to use food and beverage

establishments more than retail and shopping stores at PHL. Similar to retail and shopping

store visitation trend, food and beverage stores were visited by Gen X more compared to

other generations, while Baby Boomers remained the least frequent customers at food and

beverage establishments (Table 4.9). The test was significant as the Pearson Chi-Square

was 47,738, with the degrees of freedom 21 and asymptotic significance <0.001.

Table 4.9. Percentage of passengers who used/not used food and beverage stores
Food/beverage stores Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
used?
Yes 75.9% 76.2% 78.2% 69.1%
No 24.1% 23.8% 21.8% 30.9%
Note: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row

Considering statistics in Table 4.10, the single-factor ANOVA test revealed that the

difference between the average satisfaction with food and beverage among generations is

not significant, with a p-value of 0.23 and F statistics of 1.41. Despite the small difference

in average satisfaction, Baby Boomers were still found to be more satisfied with food and

beverage experience (5.34) compared to other generations, while Millennials were the least

satisfied (5.19). The results contradict the earlier study (Chiappa, Martin, & Roman, 2016),

where older passengers (65+) were found to be least satisfied by food and beverage stores.

57
Table 4.10. ANOVA of satisfaction with food and beverage stores
Groups Count Sum Average Variance P-value F
BB 574 3064 5.338 2.130 0.237 1.412
GX 788 4169 5.291 2.171
GY 1060 5505 5.193 2.251
GZ 587 3072 5.233 2.128
Note: The value in bold indicates the largest one in each column

A cross-tabulation in Table 4.11 shows the spending patterns among generations

when purchasing food and beverage at the airport. It was found that although the majority

of passengers spent less than $10 or $10 to $30 on food and beverage, Gen X and Baby

Boomers were more likely to spend between $30 and $100. Gen Z and Millennials were

found to have similar spending behavior. The chi-square statistic resulted in 49.45 with a

degree of freedom of 12 and a p-value less than 0.001, which indicates that the difference

is statistically significant.

Table 4.11. Cross-tabulation of the percentage of expenditure on food/beverage per person

while at PHL
Approximately how much did you Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
spend on food and/or beverage per
person while in the airport?
Less than $10 39.4% 32.5% 31.0% 34.7%
$10 - $29.99 51.1% 51.1% 48.4% 50.0%
$30 - $49.99 7.5% 11.1% 13.8% 12.4%
$50 - $99.99 1.9% 4.4% 5.1% 3.0%
$100 and above 0.2% 0.8% 1.8% 0.0%
Notes: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row

According to the results in Table 4.12, quick-service restaurants were found to be

the most visited food and beverage establishments across the four cohorts. Pre-packaged

food item providers were found to be the most popular among Baby Boomers (20.4%),

while full-service restaurants were mostly visited by Gen Xers (17.0%). At the same time,
58
a higher percentage of Millennials used coffee shops (33.0%) compared to other cohorts,

and quick-service restaurants were preferred by Gen Zs (38.3%). The chi-squared statistic

equaled 15.26 with a degree of freedom of 9 and a p-value of 0.08, which indicates that the

difference between generations is not significant.

Table 4.12. Cross-tabulation of food and beverage businesses visited

Which food and beverage business Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
did you visit?
Full-service restaurants 12.3% 15.5% 17.0% 13.3%
Quick service restaurants 38.3% 34.0% 33.7% 36.2%
Pre-packaged food item providers 19.7% 17.5% 18.0% 20.4%
Coffee shops 29.6% 33.0% 31.3% 30.1%
Notes: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row

4.4 Information Source

The data in Table 4.13 revealed that among the four generational cohorts, 87.1% of

Gen Zs relied on information about the PHL, which is 2% higher than Gen Y and Gen X.

A higher proportion of Baby Boomers (16.1%) have not looked for information about PHL

at all. Although airline websites/apps were found to be the most popular source of

information across all four generations, Baby Boomers relied on airline websites/apps more

than other generations. This contradicts an earlier study (Huang, Petrick, Benckendorff,

Moscardo, & Pendergast, 2009), where Baby Boomers were claimed to rely more on

traditional sources of information such as newspapers. At the same time, Gen Xers relied

on corporate travel planners, the local newspaper (print or online), and radio more than

other cohorts. On the contrary, online travel agencies’ websites (Expedia, Priceline, etc.),

search engines (e.g., Google, Bing, etc.), airport websites (phl.org), and business associates

were found to be most popular among Millennials. It is supported in other studies (Moore,
59
2012), where Gen Ys were found to prefer Internet-based marketing channels, including

social media, blogs, e-mails, mobile apps, and review platforms. Gen Z relies on a higher

rate on information sources such as relatives/friends, YouTube, travel agencies, TV, social

media (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), and online review platforms (TripAdvisor,

Yelp). Especially social media is claimed to represent the ideal platform for finding and

exchanging information among Gen Zs (Liu, Wang, Zhang, & Qiao, 2022). The results are

statistically significant with a chi-square of 177.355, a degree of freedom of 42, and a p-

value<0.001.

Table 4.13. Sources of information used by different generations

What sources have you relied Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
upon for information on PHL?
Airport websites (phl.org) 12.5% 13.5% 12.3% 12.1%
Airline websites/apps 19.7% 21.8% 26.5% 29.1%
Online Travel Agencies’ website (Expedia, 4.4% 5.1% 4.9% 4.5%
Priceline, etc.)
Search engines (e.g., Google, Bing, etc.) 13.2% 15.1% 12.8% 12.7%

Relative/friend 15.9% 9.4% 9.1% 10.7%

Business associate 1.2% 2.1% 1.5% 1.1%
Youtube 3.2% 2.6% 1.0% 0.5%
Travel agency 3.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.5%
Corporate travel planner 1.1% 1.7% 2.9% 2.0%
Local newspaper (print or online) 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.8%
Radio 0.7% 1.1% 1.3% 0.8%
TV 3.3% 2.6% 2.3% 1.5%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter and 5.1% 4.6% 4.2% 3.0%
Instagram)
Online review platforms (TripAdvisor, 3.3% 2.9% 3.1% 2.4%
Yelp)
Haven’t looked for info on PHL 12.9% 14.6% 14.7% 16.1%
Notes: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row

In essence, among various information needs before the trip, flight schedule was

found to be the most demanded by passengers across the four cohorts, particularly among
60
Baby Boomers (37.6%) (Table 4.14). They were also interested in information related to

parking (14.4%), available airlines (10.5%), and airport facilities (7.1%) more than

younger generations. Similarly, Gen Xers wanted to know information about parking

(14.2%), ground transportation (8.0%), and hotels near the airport (5.3%) more than other

generations. A higher percentage of Gen Y were found to be interested in ground

transportation (8.1%) and airport facilities (7.4%). The youngest generational cohort (Gen

Z) were more interested in airport map (13.6%), available airlines (10.9%), airport dining

and shopping facilities (9.9%), security information (7.2%), and airport reputation (5.8%).

The results are statistically significant with a chi-square of 186.75, degrees of freedom of

27, and a p-value<0.001.

In general, the findings suggest that the intergenerational difference in information

source and needs among PHL passengers does exist and points out the alternative ways to

approach distinct generations and provide them with the information they need effectively.

Table 4.14. Sources of information used by different generations

What types of information did Gen Z Gen Y Gen X BB
you want to know about PHL
before your trip?
Airport reputation 5.8% 3.8% 2.6% 2.0%
Airport map 13.6% 10.6% 8.6% 7.7%
Flight schedule 27.8% 29.3% 32.4% 37.6%
Security info 7.2% 6.4% 5.9% 5.5%
Ground transportation 5.7% 8.1% 8.0% 6.8%
Parking 9.0% 12.0% 14.2% 14.4%
Available airlines 10.9% 9.3% 7.6% 10.5%
Hotels near airport 3.7% 3.6% 5.3% 2.7%
Airport facilities 6.4% 7.4% 6.7% 7.1%
Airport dinning and shop facilities 9.9% 9.5% 8.6% 5.7%
Notes: The percentage in bold indicates the largest one in each row
61
 5. CONCLUSION

5.1 Discussion

A number of previous studies have emphasized the importance of airports as

hospitality organizations, playing a connecting role not only across cities but connecting a

nation with the rest of the world (Freidheim & Hansson, 1999). More importantly, the

airport performs as a complex platform for numerous hospitality organizations such as

retail stores, food/beverage establishments, safety and security organizations, and others.

They all might affect the brand image of not only the airport but the whole destination.

Particularly in the times of instability, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the

economic downturn, labor shortages, and shifts in passenger traffic negatively affect airport

operations and performance (Effler, 2022). Therefore, hospitality professionals emphasize

the significance of a passenger-centered approach in understanding the drivers of

satisfaction with the airport experience, which may result in economic and reputational

benefits for the airport (Jiang & Zhang, 2016). Thus, many scientists and industry

professionals have come up with various models to assess passenger experience and

segment passengers into different cohorts to better understand their needs and demands.

For example, passengers can be classified into demographic cohorts depending on their

age, gender, nationality, and other factors. Age was found to be an especially important

demographic factor as the difference between various age groups or generations along with

other factors can predetermine or affect passenger behavior and satisfaction with the airport.

According to generational theory (Strauss & Howe, 1991), distinct generations share a

62
similar background, set of experiences, values, and beliefs that tend to affect their

consumption behavior and traits.

Therefore, this study was aimed at investigating whether there is an

intergenerational difference in passenger experience, including retail and food/beverage

experience, the difference in information source and needs, and how this difference might

affect passenger behavior. There is no single consensus on generational cohorts’ timespan;

however, this study was focused on generations born between 1946-2004, which include

Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y (Millennials), and Gen Z.

Research Question 1. To understand the intergenerational difference in airport

experience, it is important to define airport experience, its components, and its

determinants. According to the literature review, several models have been developed to

define components of airport experience and access service quality at the airport such as

industry-based Skytrax (Skytrax Ratings, 2022), ASQ (Fodness & Murray, 2007), and

scholarly-based models such as SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) and

others. The PHL Passenger Survey was based on similar components of airport experience

such as transportation and parking at the airport, clarity of signage, cleanliness/condition

of different areas, information source and needs, food and beverage and retail experience,

amenity use, sensory perception, and others. The results of the study showed that there is

an intergenerational difference in the PHL passenger experience. Particularly in the

average overall satisfaction with the airport, where Baby Boomers were found to be the

most satisfied and the lowest satisfaction rate was reported by Gen Y and Gen X. Moreover,

Baby Boomers were consistently more satisfied with different items of airport experience

63
across all three fields (outside of the airport, outside of the terminal, inside of the terminal),

such as clarity of airline check-in signage, wait time in security check line, gate signage,

and others. Meanwhile, Gen Xers were least satisfied with their experience outside of the

airport, and Gen Zs were found to be least satisfied with their experience outside of the

terminal, and inside of the terminal along with Millennials. In addition, regression analysis

revealed the areas that had the biggest impact on the overall experience for four generations.

Gen Xers’ experience was particularly impacted by the clarity of airline check-in signage,

and the usefulness/helpfulness of flight info displays. Millennials are influenced by 7

factors, including drop-off space in front of the terminal, signs in the parking facility,

clarity of airline check-in signage, the efficiency of airline luggage check-in procedure,

condition/cleanliness of restrooms, ease of making connections with other flights, and gate

signage. Focusing on those areas might improve the overall satisfaction results of the

airport. The findings contradict the earlier research (Chiappa, Martin, & Roman, 2016),

where older passengers (65+) experienced the lowest satisfaction compared to younger

generations. Although variation in results may occur, the importance of Baby Boomers as

well as Gen Y cannot be neglected due to the proportion of the population that they take.

Similarly, Gen X, although smaller in size, is also important due to their higher purchasing

power.

Research Question 2. The study was particularly focused on the retail and

food/beverage experience of passengers, as these areas are critical for the airport’s non-

aeronautical profitability. The data analysis revealed that the intergenerational difference

in retail and shopping experience does exist, while the difference in food and beverage

64
experience was found to be not significant. Satisfaction with retail and shopping experience

was found to influence the overall satisfaction in the case of Gen Zs, Gen Ys, and Gen Xers,

while satisfaction with food and beverage experience was found to influence all four

generations. Gen Zs and Gen Ys were the least satisfied with both retail and food/beverage

establishments at PHL.

Gen X and Gen Y were found to be more likely to spend more on

retail/food/beverage while at the airport compared to Gen Z and Baby Boomers, who tend

to spend no more than $10 per person. According to earlier studies, the spending behavior

of passengers at airports is heavily influenced by time pressure, availability of stores,

impulse shopping tendency, and other factors such as disposable income (Omar & Kent,

2001). Although the majority of respondents arrived at the airport 1.5-3 hours before

embarking (53.4%), a slightly higher percentage of Millennials arrived less than 1 hour

(5.8%) or 1-1.5 hours (32.7%) before the departure. This minimizes their dwell time and

may result in lower spending and visitations to retail stores around the airport.

Moreover, the intergenerational difference in household income can also contribute

to the difference in spending behavior among passengers. For instance, Gen Zs were found

to typically have the lowest income compared to older generations, ranging between less

than $15,000 and up to $45,000 (29%). In addition, they tend to be less brand loyal and

more careful in where they spend their money due to the underlying search for financial

security (Wood, 2013). This can explain their lower expenditure on retail items at the

airport. Approximately 36.7% of Millennial passengers earned between $45,000 and

$105,000 a year, while older generations such as Gen Xers (39.1%) and Baby Boomers

65
(25.5%) earned more than $150,000. It supports the previous studies (Omnitrack Compass,

2021), where it was found that older generations, particularly Gen Xers, who are often in

the workforce, have family and are engaged in the community and social activities, spend

more per trip and travel in larger groups compared to passengers of other generations.

In addition, according to Worsley, Hunter, and Wang (2010), older generations tend

to be more vulnerable to health issues and may have mobility limitations, which affect their

food and beverage as well as shopping behavior. For instance, Baby Boomers were found

to prefer pre-packaged food items more than other generations, which suggests they value

convenience and are price-conscious, however, it depends on other factors such as

household income and savings. Gen Xers’ higher engagement in full-service restaurants

can be explained by Chawdhary and Dall`Olmo Riley (2015) who claim that

representatives of this generation usually have higher income and education, which entitles

them to be more pragmatic and search for superior service and quality. Millennials at the

same time opt mostly for either quick-service restaurants or coffee shops. This can be

explained by the fact that the airport has limited food choices and passengers are time-

constrained before their flight. For example, some terminals might have more full-service

restaurants, while others might only have coffee shops and pre-packaged food.

Research Question 3. Another topic of interest in this study was information

source and search behavior, which is essential for airports to understand how to

communicate effectively with passengers and deliver the information that they need the

most. The data has revealed that there is an intergenerational difference in information

source and search behavior among passengers of PHL Airport. For example, Baby

66
Boomers tend to rely on airline websites/apps, which are also the most popular source of

information for other generations. Gen Xers were found to rely on corporate travel planners,

radio, and local newspapers more than other generations. This finding supports the

previous studies (Mintel Group Ltd., 2016; Dabija, Brandusa, & Tipi, 2018), where Gen

Xers were claimed to rely less on traditional online advertising, and more on travel advisors.

However, other studies (Chawdhary & Dall`Olmo Riley, 2015) where Gen Xers were

claimed to heavily rely on eWOM such as review platforms and social media, and consider

online sources of travel information more important than Generation Y (Li, Li, & Hudson,

2013), were not evident in the results of this study. Millennials were found to use sources

of information such as online travel agencies’ websites, search engines, airport websites,

and business associates more than other cohorts. It is supported in other studies (Moore,

2012), where Gen Ys were found to prefer Internet-based marketing channels, including

social media, blogs, e-mails, mobile apps, and review platforms. Previous studies (Liu,

Wang, Zhang, & Qiao, 2022) were consistent with the finding that relatives/friends,

YouTube, travel agencies, TV, social media, and online review platforms were popular

among Gen Zs due to their heavy reliance on social media and eWoM.

5.2 Implications

The theoretical and practical implications of this study include the segmentation of

passengers based on their generational affiliation, which contributes not only to the

research on passenger experience at the airport but the broader understanding of

intergenerational differences and behavior. The existing literature, although categorizes

passengers based on their age as one of the demographic factors, does not emphasize the

67
generational cohort effect and its influence. Although the sample used is specific to PHL

airport, it is useful in illustrating the intergenerational difference in passenger experience

and behavior in various areas of the airport. It provides an alternative segmentation method

for airport managers who want to enhance their understanding of passengers and improve

their experience with a customized approach.

The study might be useful for airport managers in improving certain airport

facilities and areas with the lowest satisfaction rates among Gen Y and Gen X to improve

their experience at PHL. For instance, improving the availability of parking may increase

satisfaction with experience outside of the airport among Gen X, while improving the

condition/cleanliness of restrooms may positively affect Millennials’ satisfaction with

experience inside the terminal. Since Gen Zs and Gen Ys were the least satisfied with both

retail and food/beverage establishments at PHL, this might signal to the airport managers

to pay closer attention to these generations’ needs and demands in order to improve their

performance and profitability. They could focus on the stores that are mostly visited by

passengers belonging to those generations, such as gift shops, books and magazines stores,

and toiletries/cosmetics stores, to increase their expenditure on retail. Similarly, managers

could focus on introducing more coffee shops and quick-service restaurant options and

improve the service quality to appeal to all generational cohorts.

Concerning information sources and search behavior, airport managers should

closely work and collaborate with airlines and their websites in order to deliver the

necessary information and image of the airport. Moreover, airport managers should realize

the growing importance and popularity of alternative sources of information, such as

68
eWoM such as social media platforms, search engines, online review platforms, and others.

According to previous research (Li, Li, & Hudson, 2013), paid advertising and traditional

travel intermediaries are losing their effectiveness and popularity. Reaching passengers and

establishing effective communication through trusted platforms would greatly benefit the

airport by not only delivering necessary information but also improving the airport's

reputation and helping passengers to navigate and become more familiar with the airport.

This could affect their overall experience at the airport and even increase their time and

willingness to spend more on the airport premises.

Future research could focus on a particular area of interest, such as the

intergenerational effect on airport shopping behavior (i.e., pre-planned intentions, impulse

purchasing) and psychology (i.e., motivation, values, perception) or intergenerational

effect on information search behavior and alternative sources of communication.

5.3 Research Limitations

Although study plays its part in contributing to the understanding of the subject,

there are several limitations to acknowledge. First, the study was based on the data

collected during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic between February to May 2022,

which had a major contribution to the abnormality of passenger traffic, as well as passenger

behavior, priorities, and perceptions. For example, due to health concerns, passengers may

tend to prioritize safety, cleanliness, and hygiene more than usual, and this might affect

their food and beverage consumption and shopping habits. Moreover, external factors such

as understaffing, limited services, flight delays/cancellations, and surging prices may also

affect the passenger experience at the airport. While pre-pandemic and future studies might

69
reflect this deviation, the present study is one of the few that investigates passenger

experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Second, the study had a skewed sample age, which focused on passengers aged 18

and above. This implies that Generation Z could not be fully captured, as representatives

of this generation include individuals under the age of 18 (born between 2005-2010). On

top of that, the Silent Generation (born between 1925-1945) was excluded from the study

due to the insufficient sample size of this generation to make a comparison with younger

cohorts.

Lastly, the interpretation of the results is limited to a certain airport context,

particularly departing and connecting passengers at Philadelphia International Airport,

which might be a limitation when trying to generalize or compare the results with other

airports or other service environments. There is a number of factors, such as geographical

location, size, passenger traffic, and other attributes, that might affect the difference in the

results. In addition, this study was utilizing secondary data rather than relying on the

primary, and although it helps to answer the research questions in this study, it limits the

investigation of the detailed explanation of the differentiation.

70
 REFERENCES CITED

Acar, A. B. (2014). Do Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Factors Differ for Generation
X and Generation Y? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 12-
20.
ACI. (2018). Economic Impact Study. Retrieved from Airport Council International:
https://airportscouncil.org/intelligence/economic-impact-study/
ACI. (2022). Airport Customer Experience and ASQ. Retrieved from ACI.
ACI. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on the airport business—and the path to recovery.
Retrieved from ACI: https://aci.aero/2022/02/24/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-
airport-business-and-the-path-to-recovery-4/
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In J. B.
Julius Kuhl, Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior (pp. 11-39). Berlin:
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Albarracin, D. (2011). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned
Action Approach. In I. A. Martin Fishbein, Prediction and Change of Health
Behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach (pp. 3-21). New York:
Psychology Press.
Assael, H. (1984). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action (2 ed.). Boston: Kent Pub.
Co.
Beldona, S. (2005). Cohort Analysis of Online Travel Information Search Behavior:
1995-2000. Journal of Travel Research, 44(2), 135-142.
Berkman, H. W., & Gilson, C. (1986). Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies.
Boston: Kent Publishing Company.
Bezerra, G. C., & Gomes, C. F. (2015). The Effects of Service Quality Dimensions and
Passenger Characteristics on Passenger's Overall Satisfaction with an Airport.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 44–45, 77-81.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.03.001
Bezerra, G. C., & Gomes, C. F. (2020). Antecedents and Consequences of Passenger
Satisfaction with the Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 83, 101766.
Bilgihan, A. (2016). Gen Y Customer Loyalty in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model
of Trust, User Experience and Branding. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 103-
113.
71
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers
and Employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600205
Bloom, L. B. (2022). Ranked: The Best Airports In America, According To J.D. Power.
Retrieved from Forbes.com:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2022/09/21/ranked-the-best-and-
worst-airports-in-america/
Bogicevic, V., Yang, W., Bilgihan, A., & Bujisic, M. (2013). Airport Service Quality
Drivers of Passenger Satisfaction. Tourism Review, 68(4), 3-18.
Bureau of Transportation. (2022). May 2022 U.S. Airline Traffic Data. Retrieved from
Bureau of Transportation Statistics: https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/may-2022-us-
airline-traffic-data
Castillo-Manzano, J. I. (2010). Determinants of Commercial Revenues at Airports:
Lessons Learned from Spanish Regional Airports. Tourism Management, 31(6),
788-796. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.005
Cave, A., Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Kraal, B. (2013). Passenger Familiarity and
Intuitive Navigation Within Airport Environments. Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design
Research (IASDR) (pp. 1-12). Shibaura Institute of Technology: Japanese Society
for the Science of Design.
Chawdhary, R., & Dall`Olmo Riley, F. (2015). Investigating the Consequences of Word
of Mouth from a WOM Sender`s Perspective in the Services Context. Journal of
Marketing Management, 31(9), 1-22.
Chen, S.-C., & Lin, C.-P. (2019). Understanding the Effect of Social Media Marketing
Activities: The Mediation of Social Identification, Perceived Value, and
Satisfaction. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140(2), 22-32.
Chen, Y., Wu, C.-L., Koo, T. T., & Douglas, I. (2020). Determinants of Airport Retail
Revenue: a Review of Literature. Transport Reviews, 40(4), 479-505.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1738586
Chiappa, G. D., Martin, J. C., & Roman, C. (2016). Service Quality of Airports' Food and
Beverage Retailers. A Fuzzy Approach. Journal of Air Transport Management,
53, 105-113.
Ching, M. (2014). Passengers' perception on airport service and quality satisfaction.
Passengers' perception on airport service and quality satisfaction. International
Institute of Social and Economic Sciences. Retrieved from Proceedings of

72
 International Academic Conferences:
https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/0201722.html
Choi, J. H., & Park, Y. (2022, May). Exploring Passenger and Flight Characteristics'
Impacts on Airport Retail Income: Evidence from Incheon International Airport.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66(6), 102913.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102913
Dabija, D.-C., Brandusa, B., & Tipi, N. S. (2018). Generation X Versus Millennials
Communication Behaviour on Social Media When Purchasing Food Versus
Tourist Services. Ekonomie a Management, 21(1), 191-205.
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z
begins. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
Duffin, E. (2022, 9 30). Statista.com. Retrieved from Statista:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-share-by-generation/
Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2009). An Ordinal Logistic Regression Model for Analysing
Airport Passenger Satisfaction. EuroMed Journal of Business, 4(1), 40-57.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/14502190910956684
Effler, G. (2022). Fewer Flights, More Crowded Terminals Negatively Affecting
Customer Satisfaction, J.D. Power Finds. Retrieved from JD Power:
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2022-north-america-airport-
satisfaction-
study#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20J.D.%20Power,sparse%20food%20an
d%20beverage%20offerings.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (2007). Passengers' Expectations of Airport Service Quality.
Journal of Services Marketing, 21(7), 492-506. doi:10.1108/08876040710824852
Fox, A. (2022). Global Air Travel Is Already Rebounding — and Could Reach Pre-
Pandemic Levels by Next Year. Retrieved from Travel+Leisure:
https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/airline-industry-recovery-pandemic
Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). ‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for
companies. Retrieved from McKinsey&Company:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-
insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies
Freathy, P., & O'Connell, F. (2012). Spending Time, Spending Money: Passenger
Segmentation in an International Airport. The International Review of Retail
Distribution and Consumer Research, 22(4), 397-416.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2012.690778
73
Freidheim, C., & Hansson, B. T. (1999). Airports as Engines of Economic Development:
Great Airports Are Critical for a Region. Retrieved from Booz & Company:
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/19372
Gallo, A. (2015). A Refresher on Regression Analysis. Retrieved from Harvard Business
Review: https://hbr.org/2015/11/a-refresher-on-regression-analysis
Glass, A. (2007). Understanding Generational Differences for Competitive Success.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98-103.
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., & Rokka, J. (2016). Social Media Marketing
Efforts of Luxury Brands: Influence on Brand Equity and Consumer Behavior.
Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5833-5841.
Goh, E., & Jie, F. (2019). To Waste or Not to Waste: Exploring Motivational Factors of
Generation Z Hospitality Employees Towards Food Wastage in the Hospitality
Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 126-135.
Goh, E., & Lee, C. (2018). A Workforce To Be Reckoned With: The Emerging Pivotal
Generation Z Hospitality Workforce. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 73, 20-28.
Goodwin, D. R., & Mcelwee, R. E. (1999). Grocery Shopping and an Ageing Population:
Research Note. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 9(4), 403-409.
Graham, A. (2008). Managing Airports: An International Perspective (3 ed.).
Amsterdam: London Butterworth Heinemann.
Haddouche, H., & Salomone, C. (2018). Generation Z and the Tourist Experience:
Tourist Stories and Use of Social Networks. Journal of Tourism Futures, 4(1), 69-
79.
Hong, S.-J., Choi, D., & Chae, J. (2020). Exploring Different Airport Users’ Service
Quality Satisfaction Between Service Providers and Air Travelers. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101917.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101917
Horneman, L. C., Wei, R., & Sherrie, R. H. (2002). Profiling the Senior Traveler: An
Australian Perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 23–38.
Huang, Y. C., Petrick, J. F., Benckendorff, P. J., Moscardo, G., & Pendergast, D. (2009).
Generation Y's Travel Behaviours: A Comparison with Baby Boomers and
Generation X. Tourism and Generation Y, 27-37.

74
IATA. (2022). Air Passenger Market Analysis. Retrieved from IATA:
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/air-
passenger-monthly-analysis---april-2022/
Isa, N. A., Ghaus, H., Hamid, N. A., & Tan, P.-L. (2020). Key Drivers of Passengers'
Overall Satisfaction at Klia2 Terminal. Journal of Air Transport Management,
87(1), 1-10.
Jiang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2016). An Assessment of Passenger Experience at Melbourne
Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 54, 88-92.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.04.002
Joseph, J., & Wearing, S. L. (2014). Does Bear Do It For You? Gen-Y Gappers and
Alternative Tourism. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(3), 314-339.
Kasim, K. O., Winter, S. R., Liu, D., Keebler, J. R., & Spence, T. B. (2021). Passengers’
Perceptions on the Use of Biometrics at Airports: A Statistical Model of the
Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Technology in Society, 67, 101806.
Lehto, X. Y., Jang, S., Achana, F., & O'Leary, J. (2008). Exploring Tourism Experience
Sought: A Cohort Comparison of Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(3), 237-252.
Li, X., Li, X., & Hudson, S. (2013). The application of generational theory to tourism
consumer behavior: An American perspective. Tourism Management, 37, 147-
164.
Lin, Y.-H., & Chen, C.-F. (2013). Passengers' Shopping Motivations and Commercial
Activities at Airports – The Moderating Effects of Time Pressure and Impulse
Buying Tendency. Tourism Management, 36, 426-434.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.017
Lissitsa, S., & Kol, O. (2016). Generation X vs. Generation Y – A Decade of Online
Shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 304-312.
Littrell, M. A., Ma, Y. J., & Halepete, J. (2005). Generation X, Baby Boomers, and
Swing: Marketing Fair Trade Apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 9(4), 407-419.
Liu, J., Wang, C., Zhang, T., & Qiao, H. (2022). Delineating the Effects of Social Media
Marketing Activities on Generation Z Travel Behaviors. Journal of Travel
Research.
Livingstone, A., Popovic, V., Kraal, B., & Kirk, P. (2012). Understanding the airport
passenger landside retail experience. Durling, D, Israsena, P, & Tangsantikul, J
(Eds.) DRS 2012 BangkokResearch: Uncertainty, Contradiction and Value., 1-18.

75
Lu, J.-L. (2014). Investigating Factors That Influence Passengers' Shopping Intentions at
Airports – Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Air Transport Management, 35, 72-
77.
Lu, Y., & Seock, Y.-K. (2008). The Influence of Grey Consumers' Service Quality
Perception on Satisfaction and Store Loyalty Behavior. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, 36(11), 901-918.
Luo, M., Feng, R., & Cai, L. A. (2008). Information Search Behavior and Tourist
Characteristics. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(2-3), 15-25.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From High Maintenance to High Productivity: What Managers
Need to Know About Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1),
39-44.
McIntyre, J. (2022). Generational Travel Trends You Need to Know About in 2022 .
Retrieved from Tigets: https://www.tiqets.com/venues/blog/generational-travel-
trends-you-need-to-know-about-in-2022/
McKinsey & Company. (2018). ‘True gen’: generation Z and its implications for
companies. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-
packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-
companies
Merkert, R., & Assaf, G. (2015). Using DEA Models to Jointly Estimate Service Quality
Perception and Profitability – Evidence From International Airports.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 75, 42-50.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.03.008
Mintel Group Ltd. (2016). Marketing to Generation X - US.
Moon, H., Yoon, H. J., & Han, H. (2015). Role of Airport Physical Environments in the
Satisfaction Generation Process: Mediating the Impact of Traveller Emotion. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(2), 193-211.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2015.1048260
Moore, M. (2012). Interactive Media Usage Among Millennial Consumers. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 29(6), 436-444.
Moreno, F. M., Lafuente, J. G., Avila, F., & Moreno, S. M. (2017). The Characterization
of the Millennials and Their Buying Behavior. International Journal of Marketing
Studies, 9(5), 135-144.
Nadkarni, S., & Gupta, R. (2007). A Task-based Model of Perceived Website
Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 501–524.

76
National Academies of Sciences, E. a. (2013). How Airports Measure Customer Service
Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/21937
Nichols, B. S., Raska, D., & Flint, D. J. (2014). Effects of Consumer Embarrassment on
Shopping Basket Size and Value: A Study of the Millennial Consumer. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 14(1), 41-56.
Oel, C. J., & Berkhof, F. W. (2013). Consumer Preferences in The Design of Airport
Passenger Areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 280-290.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.005
Omar, F. I., Sallehuddin, I. S., Hafizah, N., & Hassan, N. A. (2016). Gen Y: A Study on
Social Media Use and Outcomes. Journal of Management and Muamalah, 6(1),
53-64.
Omar, O., & Kent, A. (2001). International Airport Influences on Impulsive Shopping:
Trait and Normative Approach. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 29(5), 226-235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550110390887
Omnitrack Compass. (2021). Traveltrack America. Retrieved from Omnitrack Compass:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5954766abf629af8e205b9b4/t/60357f62b9b
dfe4b4d2336f7/1614138644632/Omnitrak+Compass+Issue+01
Pandey, M. (2016). Evaluating the Service Quality of Airports in Thailand Using Fuzzy
Multi-criteria Decision Making Method. Journal of Air Transport Management,
57, 241-249. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.08.014
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-
50.
Parment, A. (2013). Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping Behavior, Buyer
Involvement and Implications for Retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 20(2), 189-199.
Peterson, R. A., & Merino, M. C. (2003). Consumer Information Search Behavior and the
Internet. Psychology & Marketing, 20(2), 99-121.
PHL. (2022). PHL/About Us. Retrieved from PHL.org: https://www.phl.org/about/about-
us
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational,
Emotional, and Behavioral Correlates of Fear of Missing Out. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841-1848.

77
Rahman, S. M. (2015). Consumer Expectation from Online Retailers in Developing E-
commerce Market : An Investigation of Generation Y in Bangladesh.
International Business Research, 8(7), 121.
Rita, P., Brochado, A., & Dimova, L. (2018). Millennials’ Travel Motivations and
Desired Activities Within Destinations: A Comparative Study of the US and the
UK. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(4), 1-17.
Robinson, V. M., & Schänzel, H. A. (2019). A tourism inflex: Generation Z travel
experiences. Journal of Tourism Futures, 5(2), 2055-5911.
Schiffman, L., & Sherman, E. (1994). Value Orientations of New-Age Elderly: The
Coming of an Ageless Market. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 187–94.
Schwartz. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values. Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Singh, A., Yoo, M., & Dalpatadu, R. J. (2019). Determinants of Customer Satisfaction at
the San Francisco International Airport. Journal of Tourism & Hospitality, 8(1),
1-9. doi:10.35248/2167-0269.19.8.398
Skytrax Ratings. (2022). About Airport Star Rating. Retrieved from Skytrax World
Airport Star Rating: https://skytraxratings.com/about-world-airport-rating
Sladek, S., & Grabinger, A. (2022). Gen Z. Retrieved from XYZ University :
https://www.xyzuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GenZ_Final-dl1.pdf
Statista. (2021). Resident population in the United States in 2021, by generation.
Retrieved from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-
by-generation/
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The History of America’s Future. New
York: William Morrow and Company Inc.
U.S.-Asia Center for Tourism and Hospitality Research. (2022). PHL Passenger Survey
Project. Philadelphia: Temple University.
Ulker-Demirel, E., & Ciftci, G. (2020). A Systematic Literature Review of the Theory of
Planned Behavior in Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management Research.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 209-219.
Valentine, D. B., & Powers, T. L. (2013). Generation Y Values and Lifestyle Segments.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(7), 597-606.
Verawati, U., Octora, Y., Setiawan, E. B., & Pradana, R. A. (2020). Global Research on
Sustainable Transport & Logistics. Enhancing Airport Image Through the

78
 Experience and Behavior of Millennial Passengers in Using Airport Digital
Lounges at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport. 2. Jakarta: Institut Transportasi
dan Logistik Trisakti.
Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the Functional Information Search
Model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551-578.
Weber, J. (2015). Discovering the Millennials’ Personal Values Orientation: A
Comparison to Two Managerial Populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 143,
517–529.
Wei, S., & Milman, V. (2002). The Impact of Participation in Activities While on
Vacation on Senior’s Psychological Well-Being: A Path Model Application.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 26(2), 175–185.
Weyland, A. (2011). Engagement and Talent Management of Gen Y. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 43(7), 439-445.
Wood, D. (2022). International Air Travel Demand Continues to Rebound. Retrieved
from Travel Pulse: https://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/international-air-
travel-demand-continues-to-rebound.html
Wood, S. (2013). Gen Z Consumers. Retrieved from Institute for emerging issues:
https://archive.iei.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GenZConsumers.pdf
World Airport Awards. (2023). World Airport Awards Methodology. Retrieved from
Skytrax World Airport Awards: https://www.worldairportawards.com/awards-
methodology/
Worsley, A., Hunter, W., & Wang, W. C. (2010). Baby Boomers’ Food Shopping Habits.
Relationships with Demographics and Personal Values. Appetite, 55(3), 466-472.
Worsley, T., & Wang, W. C. (2011). Baby Boomers' Reasons for Choosing Specific
Food Shops. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39(11),
867-882.
Wu, C.-L. (2012). Airline Operations and Delay Management: Insights from Airline
Economics, Networks and Strategic Schedule Planning. Farnham: Ashgate
Publishing.
Yuzhanin, S., & Fisher, D. (2016). The Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior for
Predicting Intentions to Choose a Travel Destination: A Review. Tourism Review,
71(2), 135-147.

79
 ProQuest Number: 30310446

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA