Before we get into this, we want to be clear… we are not affiliated with Falcon Field, the City of Mesa, or any aviation organization. The perspectives shared here are based on publicly available information, research, and a straightforward understanding of how airport funding works.

Now that that’s out of the way, we’ve seen some discussion recently about whether Falcon Field’s landing fees meet the Federal Aviation Administration standard of being ‘fair and reasonable.’ We want to take a moment to clarify what that actually means and why the City’s approach aligns with those guidelines.

First, it’s important to understand that the FAA does not define “fair and reasonable” as “cheap” or “the same as other airports.” Instead, the FAA evaluates whether fees are:

• Based on legitimate airport costs
• Applied consistently and not unjustly discriminatory
• Used to support the airport itself

Falcon Field’s policy fits within that framework.

As an enterprise airport, Falcon Field is expected to be as financially self-sustaining as possible. That means when there is a gap between operating costs and revenue, particularly related to maintaining and operating the airfield, that gap must be addressed. The choice is simple… either the users of the airport contribute to those costs, or taxpayers do. Landing fees are a standard, FAA-accepted method to align costs with usage.

This is why it’s important for the community to understand this issue clearly. Without a basic understanding of how airport funding works, it’s easy for misinformation to spread and for the burden of these costs to quietly shift onto local taxpayers. Falcon Field is a public asset, but that doesn’t mean the surrounding community should be expected to subsidize a disproportionate share of high-volume commercial training activity. Understanding the “fair and reasonable” standard helps ensure that decisions are evaluated based on facts, not assumptions, and that the financial responsibility is shared appropriately.

It’s also important to recognize that not all airport activity has the same impact. High-frequency training operations, especially repetitive touch-and-go patterns, may place greater demand on the runway, taxiways, and overall airfield infrastructure. Structuring fees around usage levels is not unusual, and it is not discriminatory when applied consistently across similar users.

We’ve also heard comparisons to other airports. However, the FAA evaluates each airport individually based on its own operating environment, traffic levels, and financial needs. What another airport charges does not determine what is “fair and reasonable” at Falcon Field.

Finally, this policy was not rushed. It went through a formal process, included legal review, and was approved unanimously by the Mesa City Council. That matters, because the FAA also considers whether fees were developed through a rational, well-documented process.

Bottom line:

“Fair and reasonable” does not mean “no fees” or “low fees.” It means fees that are justified, consistently applied, and used to support the airport. Based on what has been presented, Falcon Field’s landing fees meet that standard.

We will continue to keep the community informed as this process moves forward.