We have /c/fuckcars but no /c/fuckplanes. Yet a lot of the same arguments apply.
They cause air pollution (roughly double the amount per km traveled), noise pollution and they (airports) take up a lot of space near dense living areas.
Sure, some places can practically only be visited by plane, just like some places can practically only be visited by car. But people don't consider not having your holiday that far away or giving pushback on a busines trip that should have been an online meeting. Besides work-from-home being encouraged, work-from-home-country should be too.
Cars need to be discouraged in favor of busses, trams and trains.
Planes nees to be discouraged in favor of high-speed trains, staycations and hopefully new alternatives like modern sailboats or electric planes.
It's like saying "Well me smoking meth and beating my wife isn't the problem, the problem is the dealer who sells me the meth"
This is something I see so much. People like giving evocative similes without a single thought toward parity. We don't live in a world where the worst climate abuses are economy class fliers going on a four flights per year, and we could solve the whole thing if people just...didn't.
A more comparable simile is if all of what you said were true...and the pair of these hypothumans were chattel slaves under a mean master in the Deep South. Yes, the meth-taking physical abuser should stop, but there are worse abuses happening every day, on a larger scale, by a rich white man who owns them both.