![]()
A local landing-fee proposal at Falcon Field Airport (FFZ) has evolved into a broader debate about airport access, flight training, and federal obligations. The city council members voted 6 to 1 in late July to postpone the fees for 90 days as the FAA continues to investigate if the program violates federal grant assurances and introduces safety risks. 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 estimated the fees will cost 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 director of the FAA's Office of Airport Compliance, 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. 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. More complaints and delays AOPA reported that four Part 13 complaints have been filed by tenants and users of Falcon Field to date. The complaints claim the city violated federal grant assurances, used flawed financial methodology and is attempting to use the landing fee program to reduce air traffic and noise complaints, which the FAA prohibits. There is a petition with over 2,000 signatures asking the city, FAA and the airport to protect nearby neighborhoods and residences from lead and noise exposure that comes from the airport and flight schools. The city claims that it did a thorough financial review to justify the fees before approving them in March and met its obligations to engage airport users through meetings and other outreach. Mesa officials stated that the fees and other rate adjustments were needed because FFZ had a revenue shortfall and was behind on maintenance and repairs due to financial constraints. Justin Judkins, the sole public speaker on the issue according to the Mesa Tribune, urged the council not to delay the fees as they could generate around $2 million annually for the airport. The city hired Anderson and Kreiger to represent Mesa in the Federal Aviation Administration's investigation and to perform an independent audit of FFZ's financial data and the methodology used to calculate the fees. Why Falcon Field matters AOPA reports that there has been a pattern of airport sponsors turning to landing fees at federally obligated airports in response to community noise concerns. FFZ handles about 300,000 operations annually, including approximately 231,000 small-aircraft landings in 2025. About half of its operations are connected to flight training, making it one of the busiest general aviation airports in the U.S. With such a high activity level, any policy changes will affect many students, instructors, tenants and operators. Falcon Field Airport has become a test case for how far federally obligated airports can go in using landing fees to manage activity. The FAA's decision will help clarify the limits of airport-sponsored fee programs when access, flight training, noise concerns and grant-assurance obligations collide.