> I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer.

Well, yeah, but what is the problem with that? The price increase thus decreasing the demand of flights, achieving the goal.

> Well, yeah, but what is the problem with that?

Because Airlines seem to be the intended target and not the tourist. I would imagine they would have instituted an airport fee if the tourist was the target.

>The price increase thus decreasing the demand of flights, achieving the goal.

This could cause a drop in tourist dollars but maybe that's the goal. It seems Europe in general is wary of tourists. Spain has gone so far as to discourage tourism to Barcelona by restricting any new hotels or tourist accommodations. France may be following their lead and taxing Airlines instead, creating less across the whole country instead of a particular city.

That’s silly, bordering on ridiculous. The goal is to reduce emissions. That will obviously have economical consequences. Hell, that’s the whole reason we are in this mess, because doing the right thing costs more than the alternative!

Look at your last ticket. The fees being assessed are already being passed through to the end consumer. (Since they’re the one who is bringing the money into the system, they’re obviously the one who is paying it, but in this case it’s pretty transparent already.)

They could turn around and spend the revenue to make CDG not suck.

> I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer.

That's not an unfortunate consequence, that's the idea.

The economic drivers of prosperity, unfortunately, are what got us in this predicament in the first place. In the world we now live there’s no way flights should be cheaper than train tickets, should never have been.