To almost anyone you talk to, banning air travel sounds completely ridiculous. In reality it wouldn't be enough by itself. It's on the lower end of action that is required.
If you're someone who never flies, or flies once every year or two, it's not really a big deal at all. On the rare occasion I travel transcontinental I would need to set aside 3 days each way for travel instead of one, which would be inconvenient but not really a huge problem. Even if my transoceanic freight exclusively went by boat, it wouldn't be a big difference in my life. I already don't care about having the latest electronic gadgets as soon as they can be delivered from their factories.
Even two weeks to cruise across the Atlantic and a month across the Pacific (if you ignore the emissions of cruise ships for a moment) isn't really a deal-breaker on your once-in-a-lifetime vacation to another continent, either as part of your elaborate honeymoon or as part of your retirement.
The more accurate question is how does everyone respond if the cost of flying doubles?
How many business trips can be handled by VC? How many personal trips provide similar value being taken closer to home?
High speed rail is also not as great as people think - true HSR uses a pretty huge amount of electricity, which has to come from somewhere. Conventional (aka medium-speed) rail on electrified tracks is probably the sweet spot for efficiency, but the travel times aren't going to make most people happy.
More realistically, the solution in a world where carbon is "properly" priced would be that people travel a lot less overall.