City revises Falcon Field landing fee proposal, AOPA concerned
The city of Mesa, Arizona, released a revised landing fee proposal and a long-sought justification for the fees months after its original plan approved by the City Council led to several FAA Part 13 complaints and a federal lawsuit.
Under the proposal, released by the city on October 9, aircraft owners landing at Falcon Field would pay $4.14 per 1,000 pounds of their aircraft's maximum landing weight (MLW). That comes out to $10.35 per landing for an aircraft with a 2,500-pound MLW, which is roughly the weight of a Cessna 172 or Piper Archer.
Under the original structure, aircraft based at Falcon Field weighing 6,000 pounds or less would pay $20.35 per landing after their first 10 landings each month, and transient aircraft of the same size would pay $24.35 per landing.
The new structure does not differentiate between based and transient aircraft, nor does it provide any free landings for based aircraft as it previously did.
After the original fees were approved by the City Council, the FAA received at least four Part 13 complaints; the agency opened an investigation that is ongoing. One of those complaints was filed by two flight schools at the airport, which also filed a federal lawsuit against the city.
AOPA sent a letter to the FAA on May 28 in support of the complaint filed by the flight schools, asking for an immediate stay of the fees until the city conducted a thorough review and publicly provided a financial justification for the fees.
In August, AOPA reiterated those concerns in a joint letter with the Arizona Pilots Association (APA) and the Aviation Safety Advisory Group of Arizona (ASAG) and said the city had not provided sufficient financial justification for the fees, that the landing fees appeared "to be an attempt to regulate flight training rather than to address airport financial deficits," and that the city's public meetings on the topic did not satisfy federal requirements.
AOPA, APA, and ASAG requested that the FAA find the city of Mesa in violation of its federal grant obligations, that the FAA ask the city for federally required financial documentation, and if the city does not rescind the fees, that the FAA initiate a formal Part 16 enforcement action.
In its revised proposal, the city promised to post that documentation online by October 12 but did not. On October 13, AOPA released a statement expressing several concerns, including the lack of justification; the city published this 11-page document the next day.
"We appreciate the city of Mesa recognizing that the original fee structure would not work and going back to the drawing board," said AOPA General Counsel Fernando Campoamor. "However, while we are still reviewing the city's newly released methodology, the new structure already raises additional concerns."
The revised proposal, which was developed in consultation with an outside law firm, calls for dividing the airport's finances into three cost centers—walling off the runways and taxiways from the city-owned hangars, tiedowns, and ground leases that are the airport's largest revenue sources.
With that, the city says airfield operations—the runways and taxiways—only generate $400,000 in revenue but cost $3.1 million. The city then spread its net airfield cost of $2.6 million across the estimated weight of every operation at the airport over the course of a year.
"This creative approach to accounting by engineering separate cost centers all but guarantees a landing fee, and is highly misleading," said Campoamor. "You don't separate the elevator in an apartment complex or office building into a different cost center and then charge separately each time someone uses it. That cost is part of operating the entire building. And any claim or suggestion that the FAA requires this creative accounting approach is flat-out wrong.”
The city report says Falcon Field took in $5.6 million in revenue, including federal and state grants, in fiscal year 2024-25 but only spent about $5 million—leaving a $600,000 surplus. But more is needed, according to the city, "to pay for deferred maintenance and essential capital improvements projects."
"Carving out the runways and taxiways and calling it a multimillion-dollar shortfall is a choice, not a necessity," said Campoamor. "While the new report mentions past grants in previous years, it says nothing about pursuing additional grants for capital projects, which is how most airports pay for them."
AOPA will continue to review and evaluate the city's newly released justification against federal grant assurance requirements, and will provide an update once that is complete. Meanwhile, the revised landing fee proposal, which the city says would “further ensure compliance with federal regulations,” is scheduled for consideration by the Mesa City Council on December 8.
