The trick is to pitch it so that you don't have much impact on the 85% of the population who do 30% of the flying, but you strongly discourage the 15% of the population who do 70% of the flying [1]. Partly as a practical measure to ensure it's not so unpopular it gets repealed, but partly because those 15% are probably capable of making changes to their lifestyle or way of working that will drastically cut flights, whereas the other 85% are flying where they have to, to see their family at christmas or whatever, or for their one summer holiday.
You couldn't do that by taxing fuel, or aeroplanes, or anything other than individual people flying.
[1] https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/
The wrinkle I see with escalation of taxes per person per year is while my company would happily pick up the tab for work travel, I’d be upset if my Christmas trip home cost me thousands more because I’d done a handful of business trips.
Not to mention creating confusion and hassle for travelers, whose ticket price can’t be calculated and paid in advance (because you don’t know how many trips I’ll have taken before that flight), or who share a common name.
You'd still be paying more for longer and more frequent flying, but you'd also be hitting personal jets harder than full flights, less fuel efficient planes and flight paths against better ones - and it would be reduced even further if an airline managed to electrify.
Although that still ignores the additional warming effect of radiative forcing caused by flight.
https://curiosity.com/topics/airplane-contrails-are-contribu...