Falcon Field Landing Fees, the Revised Mesa Proposal, and What It Means for Every GA Airport in America

The city of Mesa, Arizona has released a revised landing fee proposal for Falcon Field (KFFZ) following significant pushback from the aviation community - but that revision has not resolved the dispute. Part 13 FAA complaints and a federal lawsuit filed against the original proposal remain active, and AOPA has signaled the revised fees still do not fully address the underlying concerns.

What Is Falcon Field and Why Does It Matter?

Falcon Field is Mesa’s general aviation airport, located just east of Phoenix. It operates two runways and handles a substantial share of GA activity across the greater Phoenix metro area - flight training, corporate traffic, based aircraft, and transient operations. It is also a federally funded airport, having accepted Airport Improvement Program (AIP) money, which carries legal obligations that sit at the center of this dispute.

What Did Mesa Propose - and What Changed?

Earlier this year, the Mesa City Council approved a landing fee structure for Falcon Field. The aviation community, led by AOPA, objected immediately. Multiple Part 13 complaints were filed with the FAA, and a federal lawsuit was brought challenging the fees.

In response to that pressure, Mesa released a revised proposal. The city also released - months after the original vote - a formal justification for the fees. That sequence has drawn scrutiny: justifications are ordinarily produced before a fee is approved, not after complaints arrive. AOPA has noted this and is reviewing the new documents. As of now, the organization has not indicated the revised proposal satisfies their concerns.

Why Landing Fees at Federally Obligated Airports Are Legally Contested

When an airport accepts federal AIP funding, the airport sponsor - in this case, the city of Mesa - agrees to a set of grant assurances. These are legal commitments, not guidelines. A central assurance is that the airport must be available for public aeronautical use on reasonable terms, without unjust discrimination.

That framework limits what airport sponsors can charge and how. Revenue collected from aeronautical users must be used for airport purposes - it cannot flow into a city’s general fund or subsidize unrelated municipal services. The FAA has enforcement authority when sponsors fall short of these standards.

How the Part 13 Complaint Process Works

Part 13 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations establishes the FAA’s investigative and enforcement procedures. A Part 13 complaint asks the FAA to determine whether an airport sponsor is violating its grant assurances. The process is not fast - resolution can take years - but it creates a formal federal record and signals legal exposure that airport sponsors cannot ignore.

The Mesa revisions themselves are evidence that this pressure produces results, even when it stops short of final resolution. The federal lawsuit filed against the original fee structure operates on a separate track and is not affected by the city’s administrative revisions.

Why This Affects More Than Falcon Field

The argument Mesa is making is the same argument heard at GA airports across the country: the airport costs money to operate, and pilots who use it should help cover those costs. The response from the aviation community is consistent - and it has teeth.

Airports that accepted federal funding were built with money from the aviation trust fund, financed by fuel taxes and ticket taxes paid by pilots and passengers. The aviation community has already paid into those airports’ existence. That context shapes what “reasonable” fees look like under the grant assurances framework.

The practical stakes are highest for flight schools. Touch-and-go training means repeated landings per hour, and a per-landing fee compounds quickly across a training curriculum. That added cost can push flight schools to cheaper airports. When training activity moves, based aircraft tend to follow. When based aircraft leave, FBO economics deteriorate. A fee that looks modest on paper can gradually unravel the entire ecosystem that keeps a GA airport alive.

AOPA has been tracking this pattern at airports nationwide for years. The EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) monitors airport access issues as part of its advocacy mission as well. Both organizations have experience navigating FAA complaint processes and the legal landscape surrounding grant assurances.

What the FAA’s Response Will Determine

The FAA holds enforcement authority over grant assurances. When it exercises that authority, airport sponsors respond. When enforcement is slow or inconclusive, the courts become the more critical avenue - which is why AOPA’s willingness to support federal litigation over Falcon Field signals how much is at stake.

Other federally funded airports are watching Mesa to see how far a city can push landing fees before the FAA or a federal court pushes back. The agency will need to determine whether the revised fees and the city’s after-the-fact justification satisfy the standard set by the grant assurances Mesa accepted when it took federal Airport Improvement Program money.

What Pilots Should Do Now

For pilots flying into Falcon Field: Check current NOTAMs and the Chart Supplement for current fee information. The situation remains in flux.

For pilots based at Falcon Field or running training operations there: Stay current with AOPA’s reporting at aopa.org. The Part 13 complaints and the federal lawsuit are both still active.

For pilots watching similar situations develop at their home airports: If a city council or county commission is moving toward landing fees at a federally funded GA airport, engage early. AOPA’s legal services and advocacy team are resources worth contacting before a vote, not after. Attending public meetings and making the economic case for what a GA airport contributes to the local community - emergency operations, aerial firefighting support, pilot training, business aviation - is part of how proposals like Mesa’s get revised before they become permanent policy.

Key Takeaways

• Mesa’s revised Falcon Field landing fee proposal has not resolved the dispute; Part 13 FAA complaints and a federal lawsuit remain active as of this writing.
• Federally obligated airports must meet grant assurance standards - fees must be reasonable, non-discriminatory, and used for airport purposes, not general city revenue.
• AOPA filed Part 13 complaints and supports federal litigation; the original proposal was revised only after that pressure was applied, demonstrating the process can work.
• Flight schools are disproportionately affected by per-landing fees, which can destabilize the broader GA ecosystem at an airport over time.
• The FAA’s enforcement response to the revised Mesa proposal will set a precedent that other city governments and airport sponsors across the country are watching closely.