2026: Updated Rules on Politics
Posted by gavriellloken@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 100 comments
OUR RULES ON POLITICS: 2026
IF YOU DO NOT READ THIS POST, YOU RISK BEING BANNED
r/aviation is an aviation-focused subreddit.
All political discussion must be directly related to aviation.
Again, all political discussion must be directly related to aviation.
If it does not clearly connect to aviation, it will be removed.
WHAT IS ALLOWED
We allow discussion of aviation regulations such as the FAA or EASA, policy changes that affect aviation, aviation safety, infrastructure, or staffing concerns, and government decisions that directly impact aviation operations.
Examples include:
“The FAA is proposing changes to ATC staffing.
This could impact delays and safety.”
“New regulations on pilot duty time may affect regional operations.”
“The administration announced changes to FAA funding that may impact staffing levels.”
“[Politician] signed legislation affecting FAA funding, which may impact ATC staffing.”
WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED
We do not allow general political opinions or commentary, discussion of political figures unrelated to aviation, political insults, slogans, or talking points, or “political adjacent” comments meant to start arguments.
We also do not allow injecting political blame, opinion, or attribution into otherwise aviation-related topics, or any comment that derails discussion into politics.
Examples include:
“This is what [politician] always does.”
“Both sides are ruining everything.”
“This wouldn’t happen if [political group] was in charge.”
“The FAA is changing this because of [politician].”
WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR POLITICAL POSITION
Left, right, or center, it does not matter.
We are not here to host political debates.
We are here to discuss aviation.
If you want political discussion, there are plenty of other subreddits for that. This is not one of them.
COMMUNITY INPUT
We have asked the community directly about political content in this subreddit.
In a poll, users voted roughly 2:1 against allowing broader political discussion.
These rules reflect that feedback, along with our goal of keeping discussions focused and productive.
ENFORCEMENT
Political or off-topic comments will be removed. Repeated violations may result in bans. In high traffic or seatbelt fastened threads enforcement will be stricter.
The mod team all works full time hours, we cannot see everything posted or commented. If you see a post or comment that you believe breaks the no politics rule please report it.
“Just mentioning it” or “adding context” does not exempt a comment from removal.
FREQUENT REBUTTALS
“But aviation and politics overlap”
Yes. Keep it strictly within aviation context. If it drifts into general politics, it will be removed.
“But I was just explaining something”
If it introduces political discussion beyond aviation context, it will still be removed.
“Why was I banned”
You either did not read this post or chose to ignore it.
We all care about this community and want it to stay a place people can come to enjoy and learn about aviation. These rules are here to keep it that way.
rotardy@reddit
As long as I can shit talk BB it’s fine with me. He was my boss before being a political appointee so he should be grandfathered.
AdoringCHIN@reddit
You guys ran a poll? I definitely don't remember ever seeing that. These rules are at least more reasonable than the old ones
flying_wrenches@reddit
I made the poll, it was up for a week and pinned for several days. It should have the mod post flair if you want to search
DCS_Sport@reddit
I’m on Reddit every day (got the streak to prove it) and I didn’t see it either. I don’t go to specific subreddits to browse, but the algorithm apparently didn’t want to share with me…
kyrsjo@reddit
A "beware of the leopard" may have been involved :P
flying_wrenches@reddit
It happens alot, the algorithm kinda sucks..
shidarin@reddit
Pinning the post was the issue. That makes it disappear from feeds
mysecondaccountanon@reddit
Yep. Didn’t see it at all.
flecom@reddit
Didn't see it either, and I'm on here way too much
Neit01@reddit
Just remember everyone this is because conservatives are getting their feelings hurt. This rule is only because they do not want to read anyone say anything bad about the guy who used to do the miss teen usa paegent. That is who the mods are getting their feelings hurt over.
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.
DCmetrosexual1@reddit
But what if the FAA is changing something because of a specific politician?
StopDropAndRollTide@reddit
That is specifically answered in the above post.
Examples include:
“The FAA is proposing changes to ATC staffing.
This could impact delays and safety.”
“New regulations on pilot duty time may affect regional operations.”
“The administration announced changes to FAA funding that may impact staffing levels.”
“[Politician] signed legislation affecting FAA funding, which may impact ATC staffing.”
Neit01@reddit
Bro youre a liar. Just admit your feelings are hurt and youre tired of being reminded the politician you like sucks. Why are conservatives such fucking pussies?
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.
DCmetrosexual1@reddit
They also say that “the faa is changing this because of [politician]” is not allowed. They’re just trying to let themselves ban what they don’t like and keep what they do.
Ordinary_Kyle@reddit
Before, you couldn't even quote the rules about the politics without it being auto deleted. Whatever their intent is, their application of their intent is what matters and they don't line up.
if our current administration is endangering people through biased rules with the FAA, it should be discussed. One could argue that everything is inherently political, I think limiting political talk is fine, we shouldn't be able to just make some offhanded comment about this or that. But, for example, the new AF1 that Qatar gave to our current leader is a bribe, it is relevant, it will be going with him when he exits office, why can we not discuss that?
I have seen very little, if any of the "this party always does this" but a whole lot of, as u/quesoandcats says below me "there is a direct-cause-and-effect between particular politicians actions and something aviation related" that have been deleted for "being political"
Seems to me, the mods are setting up the ol religious trapdoor, allowing for things to be removed based on how they like the information or not.
quesoandcats@reddit
Well said
Ordinary_Kyle@reddit
I'd also add: it must be nice to live in a bubble where, watching videos and seeing photos of active warplanes, can be viewed as a non-political thing. "oh yeah, they're just going on, flying out to, well, I don't have to think about that right now, i like planes"
StopDropAndRollTide@reddit
Well. I'm a mod, so I can tell you that is not the intent. The intent is to keep the conversation healthy without people losing their minds and starting a gigantic slap fight. The "framing" of these rules is difficult, but is based on past problems we've had on the sub.
quesoandcats@reddit
So when there is a direct cause-and-effect between a particular politician’s actions and something aviation related, are we allowed to explicitly say that that?
StopDropAndRollTide@reddit
You can discuss the policy and its impact on aviation.
Naming who introduced or signed it is fine for context.
Turning it into commentary about parties, motives, or blame is where it crosses the line.
The focus needs to stay on aviation, not politics.
quesoandcats@reddit
Will the mod team commit to setting a public, unified standard on the difference between “discussing the impact of a politician’s behavior” versus “assigning blame for an incident due to a politicians behavior”?
Tenzipper@reddit
Your examples are contradicting what you are saying here.
WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED
Examples include:
“The FAA is changing this because of [politician].”
gavriellloken@reddit (OP)
When I originally typed it out I had what meant in my mind if that makes sense... but ive gone and re worded both what is allowed and isn't sections to hopefully make it easier to understand.
Tenzipper@reddit
OK, but what if the FAA, (or whatever,) IS doing XXX due to a specific action from a specific politician?
I'm not arguing to be a pain, I just want to be sure what the standards are, for myself, as well as others. I can see this being a point of contention, as politics obviously have a huge effect on the industry.
I know this is not an easy task for you. One of the reasons I don't volunteer to be a mod, I've spent my time in the barrel many moons ago, on forums that don't even exist anymore.
StopDropAndRollTide@reddit
The allowed reason is factual. The reason you are listing can be assumptive.
Tenzipper@reddit
So, in other words, it's on the whim of the moderator who sees it.
Gotcha.
StopDropAndRollTide@reddit
We’re tightening the language to make the standard clearer. Appreciate the feedback.
Keep it civil. We’re trying to have a reasonable conversation here.
HuntKey2603@reddit
Judging by everyone in the comments praising this having either particular posting histories, or hidden at all, that should tell you everything you need to know about who is this meant to please.
PrfsNlnGrxpLdr@reddit
HuntKey2603@reddit
yeah spot on
architect___@reddit
Read the post you commented on
DCmetrosexual1@reddit
They said it’s not allowed. It’s a dumb rule.
architect___@reddit
Read it again. Look under "WHAT IS ALLOWED."
SpiderSlitScrotums@reddit
I’m still allowed to make fun of Boeing, right?
747ER@reddit
Yeah I’m all for politics to be banned in the group, but the mods don’t really seem to do anything about the trolls that come in just to make dumb jokes about our community/industry. There’s obviously a lot of anti-Boeing trolls like you mentioned, but plenty of others who make misleading statements about ATRs in icing, MD-11s being death traps, etc. Would be nice if these comments weren’t given the attention they currently do.
Stoney3K@reddit
And at the same time you mention certain political words once and you immediately get blasted by the auto-mod even if the entire thread is about aviation-related political news (e.g. staffing policy in ATC).
Im_Balto@reddit
Sorry I voted for ~~Jill Stein~~ gulfstream
LucidHaven@reddit
Why is Gulfstream catching strays
Im_Balto@reddit
I had some friends that worked there, nothing against them, just somewhat eccentric and fun to poke
SirLoremIpsum@reddit
They know what they did....
MadBrown@reddit
Thank you. It's not like there's not other subs on Reddit to discuss politics. Some of us come here to escape that.
flecom@reddit
There is an aviation politics subreddit?
separation_of_powers@reddit
Why does this come off like “I don’t talk about politics” in a negative manner?
SideEmbarrassed1611@reddit
Thank you. They have other places to have their verbal melees.
Brillica@reddit
Can we also ban people who clog the comments section complaining about the politics rule?
Far_Breakfast_5808@reddit
If they want to discuss politics so much and complain about so-and-so politician, r/politics is that way.
Far_Breakfast_5808@reddit
Does this mainly apply to American politics, or politics in general? For example, if we are talking about an airline or plane from a struggling country with bad leadership, is it allowed to briefly mention the country's situation, or does it fall under this rule too? For example, those recent Equatorial Guinea posts and people talking about the country's situation.
gavriellloken@reddit (OP)
While american politics is the largest part, our stance on politics is global. So it applies to all countries politics.
SuperChingaso5000@reddit
Thank you mods. I'm sick and tired of every subreddit turning into a political circlejerk. Good on you for actually doing something substantive about it. Hold the line.
merckx3697@reddit
Why should we get banned because American politics are in such disarray?
vaska00762@reddit
So it's not allowed to speak the Secretary of Transportation's name? Including any instance where there's a press conference where he declares the Department of Transportation is going to do something specific to aviation?
Is this correct for every other country, like if a transport minister says they're going to limit domestic flights, or discussing the supply of kerosene?
cyberentomology@reddit
SecTrans (and other cabinet positions) are not politicians, as they are appointed administrators, not elected officials. They may later pursue politics, as we have seen with the previous SecTrans, or come from politics as we saw with the recently vacated SecDHS, but the cabinet position is not intended to be inherently political.
The act of the appointment may itself be political, but the officeholder is not a politician (and as we’ve seen, the bar for qualifications to hold that type of position is lying on the floor).
slpater@reddit
Thats a whole lot of words to say people who are directly associated with, and will follow the policies of a political party arent political. Which is just flat out nonsensical and at best semantics to say its not TECHNICALLY political...
The FAA administrator I could vaguely see an argument for but a cabinet position? Something directly tied to the administration??? Youre joking If you think they are political and only not politicians in that they dont directly run for office...
cyberentomology@reddit
They are only political right now because the current administration decided to politicize the shit out of the civil service. And that has resulted in things like the secretary of transportation (who oversees the FAA) not having the first fucking clue about how to run aviation and the national airspace.
In a normal environment, those roles would be filled by people who are competent administrators, rather than loyalists to the president, ergo, non-political.
vaska00762@reddit
Most Transportation Secretaries are positions handed out to political allies who may or may not be clued into the actual workings of aviation, railways/railroads, maritime navigation or even just roads.
In most jurisdictions outside the United States, a Transport/Infrastructure Minister will just be an ordinary politician in cabinet who has to implement the policies set out in a manifesto, for which a mandate through election has been achieved. But while a Transport/Infrastructure Minister may know nothing about how an airplane works, a permanent civil servant government employee does, and will brief the minister on what's going on.
The reality is that most cabinet/executive positions are filled by laypeople. The exceptions tend to be an actual Attorney/Solicitor General, who is a qualified lawyer/barrister or solictor, and whose duty it is to provide legal counsel to the government. Outside of that, most governments put laypeople in charge of the economy, or in charge of health, or charge of education.
Even if bodies like the ICAO, EASA or CAA are run by professionals, with in-depth knowledge and experience, they'll still have to answer to politicians, because if there's a horrific accident, or there's a massive distribution to ATC, or maybe whole fleets of planes are grounded, those lifelong professionals are still going to have to explain to politicians, and the general public why they've happened, and what's being done to restore public confidence in taking a flight.
For most countries, airports and ATC are vital pieces of infrastructure and connectivity. Without it, people can't travel, and people's quality of life can decline.
We all really on flights being safe, and being reliable.
StopDropAndRollTide@reddit
That is specifically addressed in the above post.
Examples include:
“The FAA is proposing changes to ATC staffing.
This could impact delays and safety.”
“New regulations on pilot duty time may affect regional operations.”
“The administration announced changes to FAA funding that may impact staffing levels.”
“[Politician] signed legislation affecting FAA funding, which may impact ATC staffing.”
addressed in the post above
kyrsjo@reddit
But explicitly calling out who championed or voted for the policy, or which party they belong to? We can only say what changed, but if by whom is stated, we risk a ban?
StopDropAndRollTide@reddit
You can discuss the policy and its impact on aviation.
Naming who introduced or signed it is fine for context.
Turning it into commentary about parties, motives, or blame is where it crosses the line.
The focus needs to stay on aviation, not politics.
vaska00762@reddit
Would that include discussions on proposed legislation or union action in various countries?
Let's say, for example, the French domestic flight "ban" (which forbids domestic flights on routes sserved by trains 2.5 hours or less in duration).
Obviously, such a policy would have significant impacts on the aviation sector, and so debate thereof seems relevant.
Same thing when it comes to strikes by pilots or air traffic controllers. If there's an ATC strike in France, is it not relevant to talk about what the union demands are, if it could affect retention of controllers, and how continued strike action affects airlines or routings over or around France?
Arguments about political parties, or ideology unrelated is clearly a derailing. I suppose there's no point having threads upon threads about why a certain country donated a certain aircraft to a certain political leader, and have that descend into talk of corruption or foreign influence.
And yet, it seems to me that it's entirely fair enough to explain why an aircraft has to take a convoluted route to go around specific piece of airspace, especially if it's less around safety, and more international diplomacy. I think it's reasonable to explain why British Airways flights to Gibraltar had to use an unusual published approach, and why no diversion airports in Spain were permitted. I think it's reasonable to explain why Norwegian Air Shuttle 737 MAX which had an emergency diversion to an airport in Iran then spent months grounded, because a necessary replacement part to make leaving safe was subject to OFAC sanctions.
Where such instances devolve into arguments over who should own Gibraltar, or about the leaders of the state of Iran... yes that's not relevant to aviation.
stegosaurus1337@reddit
I guess I'm a little confused then, because that sounds less like being allowed to discuss the policy and more like being able to quote news articles about it. Like, if it was 1968 and we were living through the PATCO strike, would we be allowed to talk about what the strikers wanted, why the President fired them, or who we thought was in the right? Because if not, it seems like all the "discussion" that's actually permitted is "there are fewer ATC people now! That sucks." And if that would be allowed, isn't that talking about motive and blame?
I do appreciate what you're trying to do here. The sub's supposed to be about aviation. I just don't really see how we can fully talk about a policy without talking about the motivations of the people who wrote it.
slpater@reddit
So we cant discuss why government agencies might have bias related to politics... despite that being exactly how they can be influenced and how it effects policy decision that CAN effect safety...
kyrsjo@reddit
So in the context of say a hypotethical ATC disruption and sweeping changes to staffing made by the top political executive: * Can we discuss historical similarities - including drawing parallels or discussing if this represents a continuity of policy and how it aligns to the actors ideology/states goals? * Can we discuss whether previous such occurrences have caused the present hypothetical occurrence? And again, a potential continuity of actors and their ideology/stated goals?
Obviously, all within a civil discussion, with statements backed up by facts, without calling names, etc.
rinderblock@reddit
Totally reasonable.
NuclearPopTarts@reddit
Some days I wish all subreddits would do this.
3rd-party-intervener@reddit
Just more example of this sub trying to hide the truth
Griff1604@reddit
Nope, people are just tired of every discussion turning political
3rd-party-intervener@reddit
Pilots, like cops, are overwhelmingly conservative. They dont like to see things that opposes their worldview. This sub just confirms it.
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.
ballimi@reddit
To it's core everything is political.
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
This content has been removed for breaking one or more of the r/aviation rules.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
3-is-MELd@reddit
What is the truth?
Brief-Computer-9405@reddit
Good change. Well done.
pipic_picnip@reddit
While we are at it, can we please have a limitation of war footage as well which is not strictly aviation related? There are literal entire subs dedicated to war related coverage and footage. I don’t see how every minute tracking of every single military aviation asset in existence is of relevance to the broader community, most of which are people flying or boarding commercial planes.
gavriellloken@reddit (OP)
Weve actually been redirecting posts to r/combatfootage when deemed necessary
ForsakenRacism@reddit
I mean any non aviation post shouldn’t be here. This is a solution in search of a problem
T33-L@reddit
Are you saying that contributors to a sub-Reddit should be able to self moderate and so rules shouldn’t be necessary?
Swagger897@reddit
But yet certain people can’t not just yap about it/themselves.
ForsakenRacism@reddit
If it’s off topic then it’s off topic. What’s politics got to do with it. There’s no rule saying I can’t talk about baseball but it would probably get deleted
Foggl3@reddit
But there's already rule for being off topic.
ForsakenRacism@reddit
If it’s not about aviation then it’s off topic
sourcefourmini@reddit
It would be pretty weird, though, if the baseball subreddit banned any discussion of why the commissioner of baseball made the decisions he did.
Aviation is entirely governed by politics. I'm not saying that non-aviation politics should be open for discussion here; they're clearly off-topic. But banning discussion of the politics of aviation is just a way to mask responsibility for governmental aviation decisions, which have always been and always will be political.
gavriellloken@reddit (OP)
Only if it wasnt about the Las Vegas Aviators AAA team
NotARussianComrade@reddit
It's Reddit, people probably have done this and just gotten deleted before anyone saw it
Penuwana@reddit
It's not at all. There's been plenty of exactly what this is trying to address.
It's ruining many other subreddits.
doyouevenfly@reddit
Thank you mods
justinhj@reddit
More subs should do this
floo82@reddit
Good!
mightymike24@reddit
Thank you so much for this!
StalinsPimpCane@reddit
Thank you very much Mods!
Yaonoi@reddit
Fine. As long as I can shit (verbally) on ugly-ass technology outdated Sukhois (stealth, lol) and specifically mention that all sanctioned Aeroflot planes have indoor toilets.
Penuwana@reddit
Wonderful. Thank you, mods!
N3iit@reddit
Time to join an aviation subreddit that isn't full of republicans sticking their heads in the sand instead of admitting their favorite guy is actively helping ruin aviation. If you are cool with this you are against aviation and the science behind it.
gavriellloken@reddit (OP)
Well keep this up as an example of what is an inappropriate politcal comment on our subreddit.
If your comment looks like this, it will be removed.
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
GR1ML0C51@reddit
You might be entitled to compensation if you were butthurt from the consequences of your political choices. Ban me.
IM_REFUELING@reddit
Thank you!
Kardinal@reddit
Sounds great. I'm on board.
airport-codes@reddit
I am a bot.
^(If you are the OP and this comment is inaccurate or unwanted, reply below with "bad bot" and it will be deleted.)