The news that governments have thought up two news taxes should not surprise anyone. It's what they do. That both are aimed at airlines should be a worry and concern for the industry.
France is planning to introduce a tax on air passengers by next July to raise money for underdeveloped countries.
Sweden is aiming to introduce a tax on flights to encourage a more environmentally friendly use of energy.
While the second makes some sense but seems one-sided, the first, while laudable in concept, makes little sense at all.
It begs the question: what is that makes airlines appear to be such an easy tax target? The answer is hard to fathom.
Grand airlines like Air France KLM, Lufthansa and BA may have made pots of money in the 1990s but post 9/11, the pickings have been decidedly slimmer. Giovanni Bisignani, director general and ceo of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has predicted that the aviation industry is on course to lose $5.5bn this year while its combined losses since 2001 are $40bn.
In America, several of the big carriers, notably Delta, United and US Airways are in serious financial trouble. In Europe, while the Big Three, Air France KLM, Lufthansa and BA are making profits, many others are still contending with substantial losses, like Alitalia.
Low cost carriers like Ryanair and easyJet are also reaping good rewards but again many of their fellow no frills operators are also finding profits hard to come by.
To make matters worse, fuel prices have rocketed out of control, forcing most carriers to impose a surcharge which while possibly cushioning their losses is also turning passengers away.
What makes politicians think that amid this general picture of hard times, aviation is just the industry to tax is anyone's guess. It lacks any logic.
There are many industries which make more money than aviation, like pharmaceutical companies, mobile phone companies and banks to name three randomly.
But this also misses the point. If countries like France and others, like the UK which has given lukewarm backing to the idea, do wish to raise money to help underdeveloped countries, why not spread the tax evenly among all industries rather than demanding that just one pays the lot.
A second point about the French proposal is that while short haul passengers in economy might find â‚¬1 is added to their bill by the tax, business and first class travellers on long haul will find their ticket has gone up by â‚¬40.
This is a huge difference which seems to suggest that within the unfair targeting of aviation, business travellers are being also unreasonably targeted.
The French may argue that this is their way of spreading the tax around other industries but it looks more likely to dissuade people from flying.
The planned Swedish tax is altogether more complicated. The sharp increase in the amount of air travel, partly caused by the rise of the low cost operators, is causing the world problems with carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution.
The UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, in a report published in June, said that if aviation growth continues at its current rate, its emissions would wipe out any CO2 savings in all other sectors.
Travel management companies have also reported that clients are asking about C02 emissions as one of the many in considering whether to sign a deal with an airline.
An international solution, agreed by all airlines and governments, must be the long term solution. But this could be years away.
The Swedish move in itself is not likely to have much impact. But its best effect may be to remind everyone that such an international agreement is a priority.