U.S. AIR CARRIERS BALK AT PROPOSED TERMINAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L ROME 002147 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE PASS FOR EB/TRA/EN: M FINSTON BRUSSELS PASS FOR FAA: K EDWARDS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/09/2017 TAGS: EAIR ETRD IT SUBJECT: U.S. AIR CARRIERS BALK AT PROPOSED TERMINAL RELOCATION AT ROME-FIUMICINO ¶1. THIS IS AN ACTION REQUEST. SEE PARA 10. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Italian civil aviation authorities at Rome's Fiumicino airport are mandating that U.S. air carriers transfer their check-in operations from their current location to a more distant and inconvenient terminal at the airport. U.S. carriers claim the move is onerous and discriminatory, and have sought Post's assistance in blocking the move. Post believes the new terminal location will address several serious and long-standing security problems for U.S. carriers, and thus we do not believe we should help the carriers block the move. Italian airport authorities have indicated a willingness to work with U.S. carriers to resolve their commercial concerns; Post is prepared to use its good offices to minimize airlines' commercial concerns. END SUMMARY. ¶3. (SBU) The GOI recently released a revised National Civil Aviation Security Program (NCASP),which calls for moving passenger check-in operations for U.S. air carriers and Israeli flag carrier El Al from Fiumicino's terminal C to terminal 5 by May 2008. Terminal 5 is a former cargo building, currently under reconstruction, located a significant distance from the main terminal area. ENAC maintains that the move will alleviate security and congestion problems related to the high volume of U.S. passengers departing Fiumicino. -------------- U.S. Carrier Concerns -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Representatives of United Airlines, Delta Airlines, U.S. Airways, American Airlines, and Continental Airlines, and Israeli flag carrier El Al recently met EmbOffs and Embassy Rome's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Representative to discuss their problems with the proposed move. The carriers told us the move would endanger passenger security, adversely affect passenger convenience, and put the carriers at a competitive disadvantage with other international carriers. The U.S. carriers contend that they are being moved from terminal C to create space for more Alitalia flights to be transferred to Fiumicino from Milan's Malpensa airport. None of the other carriers that use terminal C and fly to at-risk destinations (Alitalia, British Airways, and Aeroflot) will have to move from their current spaces in terminal C. The U.S. carriers also fear they would incur significant costs for the move, which their rivals would not. -------------- SECURITY ISSUES AT TERMINAL C -------------- ¶5. (C) TSA has had security concerns with terminal C for several years. The agency notes that the high volume of passengers on U.S. carriers creates long lines and bottlenecks during peak check-in times, creating potentially critical vulnerabilities. The vehicle setback from terminal C is so close to the terminal that a car bomb detonated in the passenger drop off area during peak travel times could potentially wreak terrible damage within the terminal. -------------- MEETING WITH ENAC -------------- ¶6. (SBU) After the meeting with U.S. carriers, EconOffs and TSA subsequently discussed the proposed relocation with SIPDIS Vitaliano Turra', Director of Fiumicino Airport for ENAC. Turra' outlined a plan for terminal 5 in a document developed by ENAC and AdR. The plan responded to and addressed the most pressing security, convenience, and safety problems identified by TSA and the U.S. carriers. Turra' also offered to meet and work with U.S. carriers, TSA, and Post to find solutions to all of TSA's and the carriers' concerns. NOTE: TSA has not had a chance to physically inspect terminal 5, SIPDIS and the conclusion above is only provisional. END NOTE. ¶7. (SBU) AdR believes that terminal 5 will be ready by spring 2008, and that the move is temporary, pending an overhaul of the entire Fiumicino airport area within 5 years. NOTE: Post considers the proposed May 2008 move date unrealistic, as well as the completion of the Fiumicino overhaul within 5 years. END NOTE. -------------- PROPOSED USG REACTION TO AIRLINES -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Assuming that ENAC, AdR, and the GOI uphold their commitments to enhance terminal 5 security, safety, and convenience, Post thinks that the proposed move would significantly improve security at Fiumicino for U.S. carriers. We believe this potential improvement in security should outweigh carriers' claims of inconvenience and competitiveness. Good faith negotiations between ENAC, AdR, and U.S. carriers could alleviate most of the remaining competitive concerns of the airlines; the Embassy would be prepared to use its good offices to help the carriers make the move to terminal 5 as smooth as possible. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶9. (SBU) In light of TSA's long-standing security issues with the current terminal, Post believes it would be irresponsible for USG to support carrier efforts to block a GOI initiative that would address these issues. The TSA Representative at Post points out that an airline terminal has recently been targeted by a vehicle bomb (Glasgow) and that the vulnerabilities at the current terminal raise the possibility of a mass casualty attack on air passengers here. TSA notes further that Americans have been killed at Fiumicino before (1985). END COMMENT. -------------- ACTION REQUEST -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Post requests Washington's concurrence with the following response to U.S. carriers' request for help in blocking the terminal transfer. -- USG has carefully considered airline requests for Embassy assistance in blocking the proposed move from terminal C to terminal 5 at Fiumicino airport. -- We have for some time had security concerns about terminal C, particularly about the way in which the configuration of the terminal causes large numbers of waiting Americans to be concentrated close to the street. -- Because of these security concerns we cannot attempt to block an Italian initiative that has the potential of significantly improving the security of U.S. travelers. --We realize that U.S. carriers have concerns about the details of the proposed move--we are prepared to use the Embassy's good offices to try to minimize disruption and negative commercial impact on U.S. carriers. For more information, contact Joseph Farrelly at FarrellyJT@state.gov, or John Halinski at HalinskiJ@state.gov. END ACTION REQUEST. BORG