Eight nations want to tax private jets, but why not just ban them?

Will the elites take it lying down (at 40,000 feet)?

A bold new plan backed by eight nations, including France, Spain and Kenya, is set to slap a hefty tax on the world’s poshest passengers, targeting business-class flyers, first-class loungers, and private jetters in a bid to bankroll the planet’s climate fight.

Dubbed the “premium-flyer tax,” the controversial scheme could rake in €78 billion a year. That’s right—billions, all from the globe-trotting elite who cruise the skies in style while the planet burns below.

€41 billion alone would come from private jet kerosene which is currently untaxed, meaning we have the bizarre situation where ordinary motorists are more strongly taxed than private jet owners.

The plan is being fast-tracked and could be ready for take-off by COP30, the UN climate summit landing in Belém, Brazil this November. The idea? To pour the funds straight into climate resilience and development projects, especially for countries hit hardest by global warming.

President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge, calling it a “huge step forward.” In true French style, he didn’t mince words, insisting it’s high time the wealthy few who’ve "benefited most from globalisation" coughed up to save the world.

The proposal, launched last month at the UN’s finance summit in sunny Seville, has heavyweight backing including support from the EU and the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force. The idea is to roll it out in each country by 2026.

Here’s how it works: Business-class and private jet passengers would face increased levies, while aviation taxes across Europe would be harmonised to make sure the super-rich can't dodge the system.

But not everyone's clinking glasses over the news.

Airline bosses and airport bigwigs are fuming. The aviation industry has slammed the tax as dangerous, unfair, and damaging for jobs and the economy.

Airports Council International (ACI) warned the move could ground connectivity and hurt growth, especially if the cash doesn't go directly back into eco-friendly flight tech.

IATA boss Willie Walsh—the man who used to run British Airways—labelled the numbers unrealistic. He says the projected €78 billion is nearly three times the entire industry’s annual profit. Ouch.

And he’s not alone. ACI Europe and Airlines for Europe (A4E) issued a joint statement branding the plan “misguided” and warning it could actually delay aviation’s green transition by draining the funds airlines need to decarbonise.

They also raised alarm bells over double taxation, arguing that international rules like International Civil Aviation Organization’s CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) already cover emissions and that piling on new charges could do more harm than good.

And here we might get to the real problem of such a tax: it’s probably going to get passed on to you-know-who: you guessed it, us. So there is a danger that these polluting elites will just keep on lying back and sipping champagne while the rest of us pay to fix the problems they caused.

And of course, while those high-end flights might be more expensive, they’re still pumping disproportionate amounts of pollution into the air. The common sense solution would just be to ban these fancy flying options.

Indeed, how about we give people a fixed number of air miles per year? The kind of cap that would probably make no difference to the average person but reign in the decadence of the continent-hopping elites?

Maybe we even have a secondary market for those air miles where those who can’t afford to take flights at all can sell them and make a few quid to help with the obscene cost of living?