![]()
The FAA has expressed concerns over the planned landing fee program at Falcon Field Airport (FFZ) and has asked the city of Mesa, Arizona, to delay the program. The fees pose a direct threat to flight schools, who depend on affordable, repetitive landings to complete their student training, and by extension, to an industry that is already struggling to produce enough new pilots to meet demand.
How it started
Mesa's city council approved the landing fee program on March 23, which would charge aircraft based on their size, type and if they were based at FFZ. The money would be used to operate and maintain the airport.
Two flight schools at the airport, CAE Aviation Academy and Thrust Flight Properties, claim that the program violated several laws, including the city code and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Thrust Flight estimates the fees will cost it more than $500,000 in Year 1. They filed a joint Part 13 complaint requesting that the FAA review the fee structure to see if it complies with federal airport obligations, grant assurances and safety requirements. The school claims the landing fees are targeting flight schools to reduce traffic and noise at the airport, and the added costs will limit students' landings during training and lead to fewer graduates.
The FAA weighs in
The director of the FAA's Office of Airport Compliance, Director Michael Helvey, sent a letter on April 12 stating that the agency was concerned that the planned program was inconsistent with the city's grant assurance obligations and its Surplus Property Act conveyance obligations. It claims the fees would limit legitimate aeronautical activities and could negatively impact traffic management and efficiency in the area, introducing operational safety risks.
"Any attempt to limit operations or specific types of operations, through landing fees, is not permissible," said Helvey in the letter. "Further, the City's unusual landing fee structure has the potential for systemwide impacts and thus must be assessed."
The letter also stated that at least two Part 13 informal complaints have been filed by airport users, which are separate from the complaints from CAE Aviation Academy and Thrust Flight Properties.
Why every GA airport should be watching
The FAA's response provides support to pilots, owners and operators at FFZ to keep landing fees out. More importantly, it acts as a signal to any airport that accepted AIP funding. These airports are bound by the grant assurances and are restricted in how they can charge aircraft owners. If a major GA airport cannot implement landing fees, then neither can other airports. Both current owners and those planning to buy should keep an eye on FFZ to see how this will resolve, as it will affect how aircraft are charged all over the U.S.
The FAA's response provides support to pilots, owners and operators at FFZ to keep landing fees out. More importantly, it acts as a signal to any airport that accepted AIP funding. These airports are bound by the grant assurances and are restricted in how they can charge aircraft owners. FFZ's outcome will set a precedent for every AIP-funded airport in the country: if the FAA rules that landing fees are impermissible here, then we should expect the same across the board. Both current owners and those planning to buy should keep an eye on FFZ to see how this will resolve, as it will affect how aircraft are charged all over the U.S.RELATED STORIES:Falcon Field Airport introduces landing fees, flight schools sue cityNew York moves to ban ADS-B landing feesSenate Aviation Subcommittee holds hearing on using ADS-B data to charge fees