We have /c/fuckcars but no /c/fuckplanes. Yet a lot of the same arguments apply. They cause air pollution (roughly double the amount per km traveled), noise pollution and they (airports) take up a lot of space near dense living areas. Sure, some places can practically only be visited by plane, just like some places can practically only be visited by car. But people don’t consider not having your holiday that far away or giving pushback on a busines trip that should have been an online meeting. Besides work-from-home being encouraged, work-from-home-country should be too.
Cars need to be discouraged in favor of busses, trams and trains. Planes nees to be discouraged in favor of high-speed trains, staycations and hopefully new alternatives like modern sailboats or electric planes.
They do, to an extent.
Some journeys it makes sense to do by air (spending a month or two on an ocean liner from, say, London to Sydney would not be an alternative to a <24-hour flight), though short-haul flights on routes connected by more sustainable alternatives (such as rail journeys of less than 8 hours) should be taxed extra, and revenue should be spent on building out high-speed rail, night trains and sea crossings where these can eliminate short-haul flights.
The current arrangement, put in place after WW2, does the opposite: jet fuel and air fares are tax-free, while land transport is taxed.