First, we want to be very clear about our position. Our support for landing fees has always been about financial sustainability and fairness. Falcon Field is structured as an enterprise airport, and we believe it should operate as one, supported by its users, not subsidized by taxpayers who don’t use it.

The concerns about noise and pollution are real and part of why many in the community became engaged, but they are not the basis for supporting landing fees. Those issues have simply reinforced the belief that the current model, where the community absorbs the impact while also potentially subsidizing operations, is not balanced. This has never been about using fees for noise abatement. It is about ensuring the airport is financially self-sustaining.

Also there has been a lot of discussion recently about flight schools possibly suing the City, filing FAA complaints, or trying to stop the landing fees before they take effect. We want to help clarify what that actually means and what to realistically expect.

There are a few different paths being talked about. A Part 13 complaint is an informal FAA review process. It does not stop anything from moving forward and is typically used to ask questions or apply pressure. A Part 16 complaint is more formal and can lead to an official FAA decision, but it is a long process that usually takes months or even years. In most cases, policies like this remain in place while that process plays out.

As a practical matter, informal pressure like Part 13 tends to be more useful when there is political division or uncertainty at the local level, because it can create room for negotiation. In Mesa, the City Council vote was unanimous, which makes that kind of leverage much weaker. That does not mean someone cannot file something, but it does mean the City is starting from a position of alignment rather than hesitation.

You may also hear about lawsuits or injunctions to try to stop implementation before May 1. While that can be attempted, the legal standard is high. Courts require a party seeking an injunction to show a strong likelihood of success and irreparable harm. Courts have consistently held that ordinary economic loss, such as increased costs or reduced profits, does not meet that standard, because it can be addressed later. In other words, saying “this hurts our business” is generally not enough to stop a policy like this from moving forward.

It’s also important to understand that lawsuits against municipalities are difficult to win. Cities are given broad authority to manage their facilities and make policy decisions, and courts typically defer to those decisions as long as proper process was followed and there is a rational basis. Disagreement with a policy is not enough, there has to be a clear legal violation.

A real-world example is Torrance Airport. Aviation groups challenged landing fees there in court, but the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiffs failed to follow court procedures and deadlines. Regardless of the arguments, the key takeaway is that the fees were implemented and remained in place while the legal process played out.

These types of legal actions are also expensive. Filing FAA complaints or pursuing lawsuits requires significant time, legal resources, and cost, with no guarantee of success. Because of that, they are often used as a way to apply pressure or attempt to negotiate changes, not as a reliable way to stop a policy entirely.

What does this mean for Mesa? The most likely scenario is that the City continues moving forward with implementation while any complaints or legal actions happen in the background. Those processes are slow and do not typically prevent a policy from starting on schedule.

The bottom line is this, while there may be continued pushback and talk of legal action, the likelihood of anything stopping or delaying the May 1 implementation is low. The process is moving forward, and any challenges would most likely result in review or minor adjustments, not a reversal.