The the only way to make something "attractive" to the population is to place up on its competition prohibitive taxation then you have already lost.

Further if that is your "dream" to impose prohibitive taxation on the population I would question your ethical foundation as well

Edit: for the record since someone below is using a straw-man to claim I support subsidies, I dont. I prefer the government stay out it completely, neither taxing nor subsidizing (nor bailing out) anything, or any industry. I am not Pro or Anti Rail, nor I am Pro or Anti Air Travel. I am Anti-Government intervention...

Not taxing externalities is a subsidy. We need carbon tax.

There are far better ways to handle Externalities than a carbon tax.

Which BTW under most proposed versions of the Carbon tax is nothing more than a political tool, not a tool to properly account for externalities

Governments do not have a track record for being trust worthily enough to be placed in charge of controlling Externalities, it would inevitably be used to usurp power, and liberty from the people, while unjustly enriching their political allies.

This happens every day, in every government. As the saying goes "Government: if you think you have problems wait until you see our solutions."

> There are far better ways to handle Externalities than a carbon tax.

What are they? Pigouvian taxes like carbon taxes are near universally endorsed by economists as a market oriented method of improving outcomes.

If you cling to subsidies as the only way your method of transportation can continue to work, what does that say about you?

(Flights barely break even at all, and that's even with the absurd level of subsidies airlines get today)

Pretty sure I never claimed to support government subsidies either... Show me where I have.

I prefer the government to stay out of it completely. I prefer the government stay out of everything...

Without subsidies, there wouldn't be any airlines left :)

Citation needed.

In bankruptcy, assets would be sold off (the planes wouldn't be crushed). Businesses restructured and life would go on. It's extremely unlikely no one would be willing to take air travel, even at higher prices than current (I like flying NYC/SF at $150/flight, but I would do it at $600/flight too).

I'm willing to go quite far to protect the planet.