![Falcon Field Airport [Credit: Falcon Field Airport]](https://flyingmag1.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/11/637347228833270000-4.jpg?width=1920&height=1280)
The proposal to implement landing fees at Falcon Field Airport (KFFZ) in Mesa, Arizona, is generating pushback from airport tenants and users, but there’s support from residential neighborhoods surrounding it that perceive the charges as a means to reduce noise levels by reducing traffic.
Falcon Field Airport has two parallel runways: 4L/22R, measuring 3,799 feet by 75 feet, and 4R/22L, measuring 5,100 by 100. The airport sits in Class D airspace beneath the Phoenix Class B.
The airport was built in 1941 as an Army Air Corps training base, then deeded in 1948 to the city of Mesa, which still owns and operates it. As has happened with many other World War II-era airports across the country, over the decades the once open land surrounding them has been developed into residential neighborhoods with residents who complain about aircraft noise.
While the city can’t impose aircraft restrictions on the federally obligated airport, in 2007 it formed a noise Committee made up of representatives from the local community, airport tenants, the FAA, and pilot organizations to discuss concerns.
- READ MORE: Washington Airport Recognized for Environmental Efforts
- READ MORE: Mystery ‘Project Autobahn’ Eyes Florida Airport
The city of Mesa has an airport page dedicated to noise issues. There is an informational video with tips for pilots to fly more quietly without compromising safety. Among them is using the runway that puts them over the less populated area whenever feasible, avoiding touch-and-goes between 10 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. MT, flying at or above the published pattern altitude, and noting that when the tower and runway 4L/22R are closed, the traffic pattern for 4R/22L shifts from south of the runway to north of the runway over a less populated area.
However, according to numerous news stories aired over the past year and a half by Mesa-area television stations and social media posts by Mesa residents, there has been a significant uptick in aircraft traffic.
“According to numbers from the city of Mesa, in 2025 the airport had around 475,000 operations, which includes planes taking off and landing,” Phoenix’s KNVX-TV reported. “In 2024, that number was more than 424,000. In 2023, it was nearly 349,000 operations.”
Residents have also raised concerns about the increase in traffic creating a reduction in safety, noting a crash near the airport in November 2025 and one in December 2024 resulted in injuries but no fatalities.
The same can’t be said for the November 5, 2024, crash of a HondaJet that killed both pilots, two passengers, and a person in an automobile. The tower cleared the pilot for takeoff from Runway 22L, and the jet accelerated until about 3,000 feet down the runway, when the crew tried to abort. The jet began to decelerate with approximately 2,100 feet of runway remaining.
Per the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) preliminary report, the airplane struck a single vehicle when it went through a perimeter and entered a roadway. It came to rest upright on the far side of the road and caught fire. One of the passengers on the jet survived.
Residents of the neighborhood near the airport have called upon the city and the FAA to do something to reduce the noise. Per the social media posts, they suggest adopting landing fees will be a step toward reducing airport noise.
However, a Mesa official stated the proposed landing fees, if implemented, will be used to keep the airport financially self-sufficient and a community asset for years to come. How the landings will be counted and the aircraft identified hasn’t been determined yet.
“The sole objective of proposed landing fees is to cover the projected $2.6 million in annual airfield cost center expenses,” said John Zielonka, Mesa City Council public information officer. “For several years, Falcon Field Airport has been able to have a balanced budget due to a one-time sale in 2006 of airport-owned land and by significantly deferring maintenance and capital improvements. The one-time funds generated from the land sale will be exhausted within the next one to two years, and projects cannot be deferred any longer, meaning additional revenue must be generated to keep the airport financially self-sustaining.”
The airport is home to an eclectic mix of general aviation, including FBOs that cater to corporate and private jets, charter services, law enforcement and medical flights, flight schools, and recreational pilots. There are over 100 businesses at the airport, including Thrust Flight, a busy flight school that specializes in professional pilot training.
The proposed landing fee is $20 per event, and that will add up quickly, according to Patrick Arnzen, CEO and founder of Thrust Flight.
“For a flight school, a per-landing fee isn’t a small administrative change,” said Arnzen. “It fundamentally changes the cost of training because training flights are built around repeated takeoffs and landings. When a lesson involves multiple landings, a per-landing fee stacks up quickly. That either raises the cost to students or forces fewer training flights, slowing progress and delaying people who are trying to become pilots and mechanics.”
Arnzen noted that representatives of the school have been meeting weekly with other entities including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Arizona Pilots Association (APA), and Aviation Safety Advisory Group of Arizona (ASAG) to get the word out about the proposed fees.
The extra cost might also force schools to reduce activity or consider relocating, Arnzen said, which could impact other businesses at the airport.
“When training traffic disappears, the airport ecosystem shrinks—fewer students and instructors, less maintenance work, less fuel sold and reduced business for airport-based vendors,” Arnzen said.
One suggestion was that the city exempt locally based flight school aircraft from the landing fees, but that won’t be the case, according to Arnzen.
“We asked the city whether training aircraft would be exempt,” he said. “The response we received emphasized that the landing fees are needed to support the airport and didn’t mention any exemption for training aircraft. At the same time, other Falcon Field-based tenants have provisions that would reduce or avoid the impact of these fees, while flight schools don’t. So with the way it’s set up, training takes the biggest hit, and it would significantly reduce flight training activity at Falcon Field.”
The city of Mesa is studying the issue and is expected to vote on March 23.
“We have not been given a clear public implementation date beyond that,” Arnzen said.
