Idea of Selling LAX Catches Some Flak : Airport: Bradley calls proposal to raise revenue for riot relief ‘a simplistic solution to financial problems.’ Others warn it could lead to higher costs for airline passengers.

A White House initiative to promote the sale of Los Angeles International Airport and divert proceeds to rebuild the riot-ravaged city has raised concerns locally of higher airline ticket prices, reduced local control over airport operations and a potential decrease in other federal support for the city.

The White House proposal, under review by high Bush Administration officials, would remove hurdles to selling the airport. The money from the sale could then be used for urban renewal, without raising taxes.

But even before the proposal was formally announced, it was being strafed Friday by a variety of critics--from Mayor Tom Bradley and airline executives to the head of a national airline passenger group.

Los Angeles officials also continued to question whether they could remove legal obstacles to putting the airport in private hands, including potential opposition from holders of $300 million worth of bonds used to expand the airport.

At a morning news conference, Bradley called the proposal “a simplistic solution to financial problems . . . that is fraught with many problems and many dangers.”

The mayor said he is concerned that the proposal--which would make LAX the first privately held major airport in the nation--would lead to a loss of other federal funding.

The city receives $18 million a year for improvements there, a figure that could soon grow to $73 million if the Federal Aviation Administration proceeds with a plan to let local airports levy fees on all passengers.

Bradley said he worries that further riot-relief initiatives could also be forestalled by the airport sale plan.

“I would hate to think someone in the federal government would simply place on the backs of this city some enormous responsibilities,” Bradley said, “and withdraw from responsibilities it now incurs.”

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky was more adamant: “I’m offended by the notion that the United States government would say to us: ‘Hey, you just had a disaster and a tragedy and here is the solution: Sell one of your major assets.’ They didn’t say to the people of Charleston (S.C.) when they had their hurricane: ‘Go out and sell your airport.’ ”

Bradley, Yaroslavsky and other City Hall officials said they are willing to listen to a specific proposal before making a final decision. The plan has been given a tentative blessing by Vice President Dan Quayle, who sources said might offer more details in a meeting next week with Bradley.

Other City Council members, including Joy Picus and John Ferraro, have previously backed the sale of the airport.

A study on the issue is scheduled to be completed for the city’s Airport Commission by month’s end. The report by the John F. Brown Co. will assess a number of other financial changes for the airport, including leasing the facility to private owners and increasing landing fees paid by airlines.

The weight-based landing fees are now the lowest of any major airport in the nation. A Boeing 747, for example, pays about $300 to land at LAX, about a third of what many other airports charge.

Local officials, led by Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, have sought the get the fees increased to at least the industry average so the new income could be used to strengthen the city’s ailing budget.

“We don’t need to sell the airport to have access to those revenues,” said Galanter, whose district includes the airport.

If local political opposition can be overcome, the city will still have to clear legal hurdles to sell the airport.

The City Charter, for example, requires that any revenue generated by the semi-independent Department of Airports be spent strictly for airport improvements. The City Council and voters would have to give their blessing to spend the money citywide.

In addition, holders of more than $300 million in airport construction bonds have been guaranteed repayment by the city. Many of the bonds require the consent of the holders before terms can be changed. That might be particularly untenable to bondholders, if the city cannot find a way to preserve the tax-exempt status of the financing, said Assistant City Atty. Bret Lobner, who advises the Department of Airports.

“All of this is under study right now,” Lobner said

Consumer activists said they, too, are concerned about a private takeover of the airport.

Chris Witkowski, director of the Washington-based Aviation Consumer Action Project, said private operators might also raise landing fees, triggering higher ticket prices. And private owners, without proper controls, might also divert money away from safety and efficiency programs, he said.

“At first blush, it looks like a strictly political maneuver to engender goodwill and votes at the expense of people who fly,” Witkowski said. “It’s another way that airline passengers are going to have to be burdened with programs that should be paid for through general tax revenue.”

The privatization of airports has been an ongoing concern for the nation’s airlines. Airline executives also expressed concerns about higher landing, gate and other fees that they might have to pay a private airport owner.

The airlines argue that private airport owners and investors would be under severe pressure to increase fees in order to pay off the huge acquisition costs. The price tag for the Los Angeles airport has been estimated at $2 billion.

“There is some real concern in terms of what it’s going to cost us in the long run,” said Tim Neale, a spokesman for the Air Transport Assn., a Washington-based airline industry trade group. “The major airports across the country have been paid for once and we are concerned that we will end up paying for them a second time.”

Airline officials said they also are concerned about losing the ready access and lobbying access they have enjoyed with public airport operators.

“We (now) have a seat at the table. We can negotiate,” said Ron Ricks, vice president of governmental affairs at Southwest Airlines. “When they try to determine their fees, there is a meeting between the users and the airlines to look at the data. Private owners would not have to do any of that.”

Privatization supporters argue, however, that obstacles to private ownership can be overcome.

Robert Poole, president of the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, called the threats of higher airline ticket prices a “red herring” raised by airlines to divert attention from their low landing fees and other “sweetheart deals.”

He said landing fees and ticket prices are just as likely to increase under public ownership.

One firm that already operates several airports, Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., has been closely monitoring proposals to sell LAX, and the firm might be interested in buying it if the terms are right, said its president, Viggo M. Butler.

Lockheed operates Burbank airport and four other U. S. airports and recently became owner and operator of the international terminal at the airport in Toronto.

“Our goal would be to not increase prices,” Butler said. “We don’t see why, when the private sector gets involved, it would have to be more expensive.”

Times staff writer Jesus Sanchez contributed to this story.