I see you're getting downvoted but maybe "get rid of" isn't the best approach. Certainly taxing air travel at a chunky rate would reduce unnecessary flights.
I mean, if you ignore cargo, sure. If you don't ignore it nor that more fuel is being burned by an average cargo flight (due to more weight compared to a commercial flight), it'd inconvenience everyone.
Expect cargo flight are responsible for a fraction of CO2 emissions from commercial aviation[1].
If you really want to push there are solutions:
Packages just take longer over sea (10-15 days) until we switch to an air ship (2-3) based transport system which doesn't have to pay so much energy of lifting.
Taxing it means : the rich will be able to continue to fly while the poor, not being able to travel anymore because of the tax, will support the burden of climate adaptation. That's not justice.
And that's the issue : climate change requires a global effort and if we want to have the masses to adapt, then we must have the elite to adapt equally.
A frequent flyer tax would help here. Everyone gets a tax-free flight, then a low tax for the next one, and it keeps increasing for more flying. ~23 minutes in this podcast describes it and explains how it'd make a huge impact: https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles
The key stat is it'd be enough to reach the UK's target on carbon emissions from flying by 2050, at a cost of 0% for the first flight and 9% on the second (going up steeply from there). Of course, other countries may have different data but the principle should be the same.
The rich will support the burden of climate adaptation because the income from the tax can be used directly to help mitigate climate change.
The vast majority of flights are taken by a small minority of people; they're taken by the richest. Take the United Kingdom as an example: 70% of all flights were taken by 15% of people [0]. It certainly isn't the poorest taking these flights.
So taxing flights will have less direct impact on the poorest than one might think.
Having said that, I think a charge on carbon is more fair than taxing flights directly.
>A carbon fee and dividend or climate income is a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global warming. The system imposes a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and then distributes the revenue of this tax over the entire population (equally, on a per-person basis) as a monthly income or regular payment.
I'm not saying we should leave it as is, but there are easier and more impactful things to focus on.