Australia’s Powerful AI Travel Shift Reveals Regional Travellers Falling Behind Metro Users

Image generated with Ai

AI travel planning in Australia is developing unevenly, with a divide emerging between regional and metropolitan travellers. Boomtown’s October 2025 travel research found that only 17% of regional respondents had used artificial intelligence to help plan or book a trip, compared with 29% of metro travellers.

The gap matters because regional travellers in Australia were shown to spend more per holiday, stay away longer and display strong intentions to travel domestically. Their behaviour therefore provides a view of Australia travel trends. The findings show why AI travel booking cannot be assessed without considering spending, distance, loyalty and travel costs alone.

How Wide Is the AI Travel Planning Gap?

The strongest digital contrast in the report was recorded around artificial intelligence. AI travel planning in Australia was used by 17% of regional travellers for booking or planning, while usage reached 29% among metro travellers. The report described metro travellers as being about twice as likely to use the technology. Within metropolitan audiences, Millennials and Gen Z were identified as leading users. AI tools were being used to search for cheaper flights and accommodation and to build personalised itineraries. By contrast, lower adoption was recorded among regional respondents.

No evidence was provided that regional travellers were opposed to artificial intelligence, so that conclusion should not be drawn from the study. Instead, the finding is limited to reported usage. For travel brands assessing AI travel booking, the result provides a comparison between the two groups, rather than a prediction about how regional adoption will develop or whether the gap will continue.

Why Does Regional Holiday Spending Matter?

A different pattern was recorded when holiday spending and trip length were examined. Regional travellers in Australia spent an average of $5,770 per holiday, 5% more than the $5,484 metro average. The difference amounted to $286, and the report noted that the higher spending was particularly noticeable on flights. Longer stays were also recorded. Regional holidays averaged 10.3 nights, compared with 9.1 nights for metro travellers.

These figures place the digital adoption gap beside a group that was shown to commit more money and time to individual holidays. The research also found that regional and metro travellers were planning an average of two holidays a year. Escaping day-to-day pressures, connecting with family, relaxing and unwinding were listed among the motivations for regional trips. Taken together, these findings add useful context to Australia travel trends without suggesting that higher holiday spending was caused by lower use of artificial intelligence planning tools.

Where Are Regional Travellers Planning to Go?

Travel intent was shown to remain broad across regional Australia. The study found that 81% of regional residents planned a domestic trip within the following year, compared with 78% of metro respondents. Capital cities were prominent among intended domestic destinations, but 145 Australian destinations were being considered overall. International demand was also present, with half of regional Australians looking overseas during the next 12 months. New Zealand ranked first, followed by Japan and the UK.

Road travel was another clear point of difference: 47% of regional travellers intended to take road trips, compared with 28% of metro travellers. Distance to airports was also greater. Regional respondents reported travelling 2.9 hours to international airports and 1.7 hours to domestic airports, while 1.5 hours was reported for metro travellers. These figures show that Australia travel trends extend beyond digital behaviour and include access, destination choice and transport preferences among the surveyed audiences.

How Do Loyalty, Local Spending and Costs Shape Behaviour?

Commercial behaviour in the survey was also distinctive. Some 72% of regional travellers planned to spend money with local businesses, compared with 56% of metro travellers. Loyalty participation was lower: 33% of regional respondents did not belong to a travel loyalty programme, against 19% of metro respondents. Cost pressures were nevertheless prominent. The cost of reaching a destination was identified as a challenge by 47% of regional respondents versus 37% of metro respondents, while cost-of-living pressure made saving harder for 47%, compared with 41% in metro areas.

The report therefore highlighted discounts, promotions and travel packages as relevant considerations. These results came from a 15-minute online survey conducted from 15 September to 2 October 2025. It included 881 regional and 298 metro respondents. Regional respondents formed 74%. Data was independently weighted to represent regional and five-capital-city metro audiences, but the report explicitly stated that the results were not nationally representative.

Conclusion

Boomtown’s research shows that AI travel planning in Australia is being used differently by regional and metro travellers, with adoption recorded at 17% and 29% respectively. Yet regional respondents were shown to spend more per holiday, stay longer, favour road trips, support local businesses and plan domestic travel.

Cost remained a concern, while loyalty-programme participation was lower among regional travellers. These findings place AI travel booking within a wider set of travel behaviours rather than in isolation. Because the study was not nationally representative, its figures should be read as comparisons between the regional and five-capital-city audiences that were surveyed.