Pilots Push Back on Falcon Field Landing Fees as FAA Reviews Mesa's Justification

SUMMARY: AOPA and two Arizona groups have challenged Mesa’s landing fees at Falcon Field before the FAA, a case that could set precedent nationwide.

AOPA, the Arizona Pilots Association (APA), and the Aviation Safety Advisory Group of Arizona (ASAG) have filed formal comments with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) disputing the city of Mesa’s defense of its landing fees at Falcon Field in Mesa, Arizona. The groups argue the city has not shown that the fees are reasonable or properly tied to the actual cost of running the airport. The FAA’s review is ongoing, and no final determination has been announced as of August 2026.

What Is Happening at Falcon Field?

Falcon Field is a busy general aviation airport in Mesa, Arizona, just east of Phoenix. It’s a training hub and business aviation field, home to flight schools, maintenance shops, and a steady flow of piston singles doing pattern work in the desert air. For many pilots, it’s where they earned their certificates.

Not long ago, the city that owns Falcon Field put a landing fee program in place. That decision is now the center of a federal dispute.

Landing fees are not new in aviation - large airline airports have charged them for decades. But at a general aviation field, where the traffic is training flights and light aircraft, a landing fee raises a specific question: Is the fee fair, and is it justified by the actual cost of running the airport?

Why Are Pilots Challenging the Fees?

Pilots and aviation groups filed complaints under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 13. In plain terms, Part 13 is the process used to tell the FAA that an airport sponsor - usually a city or county - may be breaking the rules attached to the federal money it accepted.

That’s the key. When an airport takes federal grant dollars, it signs grant assurances - binding promises. One of the most important is that any fees charged to users must be reasonable and tied to the real cost of providing the service. A city cannot treat the airport as a cash register for its general budget.

The pilots’ argument is that Falcon Field’s landing fees aren’t properly justified by the numbers, and that the city’s financial methodology doesn’t hold up. The city of Mesa defended its approach, laying out its financial rationale and its justification for how the fees are set.

What Did AOPA and the Arizona Groups File?

This week, AOPA, the Arizona Pilots Association (APA), and the Aviation Safety Advisory Group of Arizona (ASAG) submitted formal comments to the FAA pushing back on Mesa’s defense. Their position: the city’s justification still doesn’t answer the core objection, and the methodology does not demonstrate that the fees are reasonable or properly tied to cost.

The fact that three organizations - a national body, a state pilots association, and a regional safety group - are filing together signals they view this as bigger than one airport.

Why This Matters for Pilots Everywhere

This is effectively a test case. If Mesa’s methodology stands, other cities may start to view their general aviation airports as an untapped revenue source. The real concern isn’t just the dollars at Falcon Field - it’s the precedent.

The case matters to anyone who flies out of an airport owned by a city or county that has accepted federal airport grants, which describes most general aviation fields. The principle underneath the dispute - that fees must be reasonable and reflect cost - is the same principle that keeps public airports accessible to the pilots and taxpayers who funded them.

Fact vs. Interpretation

The confirmed facts: complaints were filed under Part 13, the city defended its fee methodology, AOPA and the two Arizona groups filed comments disputing that defense, and the FAA’s review is ongoing with no final determination announced.

The interpretation: the FAA’s eventual finding will matter well beyond Mesa. If the agency signals that a general aviation landing fee must be backed by rigorous, cost-based justification, that becomes a guardrail for every field. If it signals that cities have wide latitude, expect more landing fee programs to appear at GA airports nationwide.

What Should Pilots Do Now?

If you fly out of Falcon Field, stay close to AOPA, the Arizona Pilots Association, and ASAG - they are carrying this fight and will be first to report where it goes.

If you fly elsewhere, treat this as a reminder that airport access is defended, not automatic. When a city floats a new fee, a new lease structure, or a change in how the airport is funded, that’s the moment to speak up - before the policy is set, not after.

And remember the mechanism: the Part 13 complaint process exists because pilots have standing. When an airport sponsor takes federal money and then charges fees that don’t add up, there is a formal channel to challenge it. That’s exactly what is playing out at Falcon Field right now.

Key Takeaways

• AOPA, the Arizona Pilots Association, and ASAG have filed formal comments with the FAA disputing Mesa’s defense of its Falcon Field landing fees.
• The challenge was filed under FAR Part 13, arguing the fees violate federal grant assurances requiring fees to be reasonable and cost-based.
• The FAA review is ongoing, with no final determination announced as of August 2026.
• The outcome could set a national precedent for landing fees at general aviation airports owned by cities and counties.
• Pilots at any federally funded field have a formal channel - the Part 13 process - to challenge fees that aren’t justified by cost.