L.A. Drops Threat to Cut Access to Airport : Finances: Officials and opposing airlines agree to take their dispute over higher landing fees to federal court next month.

The city of Los Angeles dropped its threat to cut off airport access to airlines that refuse to pay higher landing fees, sending a stalemate between the city and the airline industry to federal court next month.

The airlines had intended to seek a temporary restraining order in federal court Thursday that would have forced the city to suspend plans to ban non-payers from using Los Angeles International Airport. But the city agreed in court documents to withdraw the threat as long as the dispute goes before a judge Oct. 25.

The city contends that it got what it wanted: As part of next month’s proceedings, U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima will hear the city’s arguments that the airlines ought to pay their disputed landing fees, which would net an extra $50 million.

“This was the only thing we could do to get this matter into court,” Airport Director Jack Driscoll said. “We’ll let a judge decide.”

On Monday, the city’s Board of Airport Commissioners decided to cut off access to Los Angeles International to America West, Southwest, USAir and USAir Express on Oct. 4 unless they paid their fees. Other non-paying airlines were to receive similar warnings in the coming weeks.

The city’s hardball negotiating tactic came after the airlines sued the city, challenging its tripling of the fees. Although 34 airlines have paid the city the new rate of $1.56 per 1,000 pounds of landed weight, 76 others have protested by paying the old rate of 51 cents.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena intervened in the dispute Thursday, saying in a letter to the city and the airlines that he opposed any disruption in airport service.

“I wish to underscore my strong concern that no action be taken by either party that might undermine the safety or efficiency of air traffic operations at Los Angeles International Airport, or that would otherwise disserve the traveling public, shippers or others who depend on air commerce,” Pena wrote.

James E. Landry, president of the Air Transport Assn., said he appreciated Pena’s intervention.

“The airlines involved in this dispute have stated repeatedly that they have no intention of letting this controversy disrupt service to Los Angeles, which would ripple throughout the nation’s air transportation system,” Landry said.

“Regrettably,” he added, “the city of Los Angeles chose to threaten to take action to the contrary.”

But Mayor Richard Riordan put a different spin on the situation.

“We took the actions to which you refer only after exhausting all other options for resolution,” the mayor responded in a letter to Pena. “In light of the airlines’ unilateral refusal to obey the laws of the city . . . we took the minimum steps necessary to protect the financial integrity of our airport.”

The financial dispute centers on the landing fees, which were increased drastically earlier this year in the final days of Mayor Tom Bradley’s Administration. The previous rates were part of a 40-year-old agreement that expired in 1992.

Under the new rates, which took effect July 1, the operator of a Boeing 747 that previously paid about $300 to land at the airport would pay more than $900.

The airlines contend that the steep fee increase violates federal law and aviation agreements that prohibit airlines from charging fees beyond those needed to operate airports.

The city hopes to get $74 million a year from the new fees--a $50-million increase. The city notes that the new rate of $1.56 puts Los Angeles International Airport in line with other big-city airports in the United States. La Guardia, Kennedy, Newark, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas and Boston airports charge more than Los Angeles’ new rates.

Dismissing such comparisons, the airlines say the real question is what does the city plan to do with the extra money it collects.

The city says any money not used to run the airport will go toward future capital improvements. The fee increase is not related to a plan to use airport money to pay for more police, the city says.

Although such a diversion of funds is illegal under federal law, Riordan is seeking an exemption for Los Angeles International Airport.

The airlines contend that the fee increase and its diversion plan are connected. They say the city is seeking to amass extra revenue in violation of federal law so it can eventually fund the mayor’s police plan.

In his letter, Pena reiterated that such a diversion of revenue would be illegal.

“We . . . support the right of airports to establish fees at levels that are sufficient to operate and maintain the airport and fund airport capital improvement projects,” he wrote.

“Under applicable federal law, such fees must be reasonable, and any revenue derived from the fees must be utilized only for airport purposes and may not be diverted off the airport for other purposes.”

Times staff writer Rich Connell contributed to this story.