Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

SR380 · Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:28 am

Title say it all. Due to the last launch of a "satellite" by the DPRK, the security council will impose new sanction on North Korea. The country might not be able to supply its airport with jet fuel. How will Air Koryo manage? Fuel plane in Bejing for the round trip as Iran Air use to do on Eastern European countries on their way to AMS or ORY.

cedarjet · Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:57 am

China will veto it. Maybe its a warning shot across the DPRK's bows (with China's consent) to raise the vote but it won't pass.

Btw I am a little bit confused, why can't DPRK have the bomb? I mean, I don't want it to have the bomb but I don't want France, Pakistan, Israel, China etc to have the bomb. So I don't really see what the ground for sanctions are. Ironic that all five members of the UN Security Council have it.

nighthawk · Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:36 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
China will veto it. Maybe its a warning shot across the DPRK's bows (with China's consent) to raise the vote but it won't pass.

Not necessarily - today China announced they are going to stop buying coal from North Korea, which means a 50% reduction in trade with DPRK. This is thought to be in retaliation to the rocket test. So China is by no means supporting the DPRK at the moment, and are currently in talks about increased sanctions. They may choose to allow some to pass.

SYDSpotter · Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:52 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
Btw I am a little bit confused, why can't DPRK have the bomb? I mean, I don't want it to have the bomb but I don't want France, Pakistan, Israel, China etc to have the bomb. So I don't really see what the ground for sanctions are. Ironic that all five members of the UN Security Council have it.

Because unlike the current nations that have the bomb, they have openly threatened to use it. For the other countries, their arsenal acts as a deterrent against any nuclear attack on them. Not I that support their existence, but at least this system of deterrence has worked for last 70 years. A country such as the DPRK which quite frankly doesn't have much to lose and has such a illogical leadership, is a very real threat.

Heavierthanair · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:21 am

G'day

That embargo will seriously hurt Dear Leader Dickie Kim personally, how is he going to fly in his premium brand Cognac that he is addicted to?

I predict the DPRK will stop nuclear tests to get the booze flowing again

Cheers

Peter

cedarjet · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:26 am

I know China is cheesed* off with DPRK but the last thing they want is a unified, US-allied Korea on their border. Ultimately they will ensure the survival of the regime. Cut coal imports perhaps, but starve the country of jet fuel? Impossible.

SR380 · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:45 am

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 3):
Because unlike the current nations that have the bomb, they have openly threatened to use it. For the other countries, their arsenal acts as a deterrent against any nuclear attack on them. Not I that support their existence, but at least this system of deterrence has worked for last 70 years. A country such as the DPRK which quite frankly doesn't have much to lose and has such a illogical leadership, is a very real threat.

I don't want to turn this topic into something political but frankly the only country who ever used it was the USA. Yet they still have it. France conducted more than 190 atmospheric test in French Polynesia with huge effect on its inhabitants. Yet those same country want to take sacontions against a country that withdrew from the non proliferation act. Don't get me wrong but this is not okay. I am not in favor of DPRK having the bomb, but why some could have it and other not?!

Anyway... Back to the topic. It's really unfortunate. I had hope for DPRK to open a bit more with all of those tourist project coming along. I don't see Air Koryo order many aircraft "à la Iran Air" any time soon if they cannot fuel it. I am wondering about that air show there were suppose to held in Wonsan soon

sassiciai · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:52 am

Quoting SR380 (Thread starter):
Title say it all.

Not for me, it didn't!

Maybe change the Dprk into DPRK and that would help. As it is, I didn't understand where I was going when I opened the link, I did it to find out what the thread was about!

I add that you could improve the English and understanding of the title by making it something like "Total jet fuel embargo may be imposed on DPRK"

[Edited 2016-02-26 04:03:14]

kaitak · Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:04 pm

Quoting SR380 (Reply 6):
I don't see Air Koryo order many aircraft "à la Iran Air" any time soon if they cannot fuel it

Won't they be able to buy fuel at external ports like PVG, PEK etc and just tanker them back? I think they will want to keep Air Koryo operational, as it's a useful source of hard currency.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
China will veto it. Maybe its a warning shot across the DPRK's bows (with China's consent) to raise the vote but it won't pass.

They supported the US move, so I'd be surprised if they vetoed it.

nighthawk · Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:42 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 8):
Won't they be able to buy fuel at external ports like PVG, PEK etc and just tanker them back? I think they will want to keep Air Koryo operational, as it's a useful source of hard currency.

If there was an embargo against the sale of jet fuel to North Korea, then it would be a violation of this embargo to sell jet fuel to Air Koryo, as they would then be transporting it to DPRK.

Francoflier · Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:53 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 5):
Cut coal imports perhaps, but starve the country of jet fuel? Impossible.

Depriving NK of coal would be much worse than depriving them of jet fuel.

Coal shortages would cause major disruptions to an already very difficult living for the population of NK. More blackouts, no heating, no cooking, no functioning hospitals. In fact, it would be criminal on a genocidal level to the poor North Koreans. The elite, on the other hand, would, as always, keep fat warm and happy with whatever resources they manage to smuggle in.

Jet fuel is only used in NK by the very few at the top of that trainwreck of a regime who can afford to fly and the military. 99% of North Koreans have never seen an airplane up close and the general population wouldn't be affected.

That's exactly what you would want.
But as mentioned above, China and Russia will oppose, as usual.

[Edited 2016-02-26 06:54:40]

sassiciai · Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:00 pm

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 2):
today China announced they are going to stop buying coal from North Korea, which means a 50% reduction in trade with DPRK

Quoting francoflier (Reply 10):
Depriving NK of coal would be much worse than depriving them of jet fuel.

It seems that you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. It is coal mined in NK that the Chinese are now not going to buy. Thus the NK population MAY in fact get more coal, not less or none as a result of these Chinese sanctions

jfkgig · Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:47 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 5):

I know China is cheesed* off with DPRK but the last thing they want is a unified, US-allied Korea on their border. Ultimately they will ensure the survival of the regime. Cut coal imports perhaps, but starve the country of jet fuel? Impossible.

The collapse of the DPRK is absolutely inevitable, and the Chinese know this. The worst case scenario for the Chinese is to have unification happen with a South Korea that is beholden to the USA. If the Chinese allow the DPRK to act in a threatening manner, they will force South Korea to rely upon the United States, and its tens of thousands of locally stationed troops, for protection. If the Chinese cooperate with South Korea by prodding DPRK to behave rationally, they will move the South Koreans away from the United States, and more allied with China.

China has larger and more important trade today with South Korea than with DPRK. DPRK creates instability on the Korean peninsula which is not in China's strategic interests. When China initially failed to act against DPRK after the recent launch, the South Koreans announced the largest joint US-South Korean war games ever -- and they evidently made their point with China. China has much more to gain with cooperating with South Korea than it does with continuing to prop up a DPRK which is continually creating potential instability on its borders, and which encourages the continuation of U.S. forces on the Korean peninsula. China's support of South Korea has the potential to lessen U.S. influence, and even to someday eliminate the U.S. military presence, and do it before unification.

LAX772LR · Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:19 am

Quoting jfkgig (Reply 12):
and even to someday eliminate the U.S. military presence, and do it before unification.

Highly doubtful that the former would occur before the latter.

F9Animal · Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:24 am

Am I the only one that feels terrible for the citizens of North Korea? The sanctions hurt the innocent the most, and many are already starving.

Quoting jfkgig (Reply 12):
The collapse of the DPRK is absolutely inevitable, and the Chinese know this

God I hope you are right. If and when it happens, I hope there is a mass convoy of food rolling in to feed the people!

Quoting SR380 (Thread starter):
How will Air Koryo manage?

I don't think it could manage very well if there is a jet fuel embargo. I mean, the airline could do stops for fuel, but, they are running thin on allies that would sell them fuel. If the sanctions included gasoline, the airline would be in dire straits.

Does N. Korea have oil? Can it refine it?

Mortyman · Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:33 am

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 3):
Because unlike the current nations that have the bomb, they have openly threatened to use it. For the other countries, their arsenal acts as a deterrent against any nuclear attack on them. Not I that support their existence, but at least this system of deterrence has worked for last 70 years. A country such as the DPRK which quite frankly doesn't have much to lose and has such a illogical leadership, is a very real threat.

The US HAS used it on civilians and no doubt would do it again. United States Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter thought about the idea of possibility nuking North Korea before he became United States Secretary of Defense. Why should anyone have the nuke ?

LTU932 · Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:57 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
China will veto it.

I doubt that, given that the US has worked with the PRC on the most recent sanctions against North Korea.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 9):
If there was an embargo against the sale of jet fuel to North Korea, then it would be a violation of this embargo to sell jet fuel to Air Koryo, as they would then be transporting it to DPRK.

It depends on how the resolution is drafted. If it says that no jet fuel may be sold to North Korean airports, then it means in theory that JS would still be able to be refuelled abroad, but be forced to tanker enough of it for the outbound from FNJ. And if sanctions on jet fuel do come into effect, it may also force the very few foreign airlines operating into FNJ to tanker as well.

However, if the resolution bans any North Korean entity from buying jet fuel, then JS will be in big trouble and may have to shut down, or acquire the fuel in some way illegally.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 14):
I don't think it could manage very well if there is a jet fuel embargo. I mean, the airline could do stops for fuel, but, they are running thin on allies that would sell them fuel. If the sanctions included gasoline, the airline would be in dire straits.

They only have China as close ally, maybe to some degree also Russia. That being said, Beijing is more and more pissed at Pyongyang for their nuclear programme, so Kim can't rely on the big neighbour from up north as an unconditional ally anymore.

csavel · Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 3):
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
Btw I am a little bit confused, why can't DPRK have the bomb? I mean, I don't want it to have the bomb but I don't want France, Pakistan, Israel, China etc to have the bomb. So I don't really see what the ground for sanctions are. Ironic that all five members of the UN Security Council have it.

Because unlike the current nations that have the bomb, they have openly threatened to use it. For the other countries, their arsenal acts as a deterrent against any nuclear attack on them. Not I that support their existence, but at least this system of deterrence has worked for last 70 years. A country such as the DPRK which quite frankly doesn't have much to lose and has such a illogical leadership, is a very real threat.

This. It is true that the US is the only country to use a nuke, but one must keep in mind, that believe it or not, the true evil and power of a nuclear bomb wasn't apparent at the time they were used, and this was also used at the end of a war whose global scale and brutality we hope has never been matched. In addition, *at the time* most thought an invasion of Japan would kill millions. As it was, it was the Soviet Union intervening that really made Japan surrender. It is no accident that so far, the end of WWII was the only time that nukes have ever been used.

The problem with DPRK having nukes is instability in their leadership. Most states are what are known as rational state actors, even if brutal and bloodthirsty, their actions are almost like a chess master - sometimes they make a bad decision (Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait), but they are not going to haul off and throw a nuke, just because, or because God says so. Nor will they sell their nukes, just becuz! That is why, personally, I have no problem with a nuclear Iran, Iran is a rational state actor, they are not all of a sudden going to lob a nuke to Tel Aviv. Ain't gonna happen. iran is not going to "gift" a nuke to Hezbollah, ain't gonna happen.

Israel is pissed b/c their leverage over Iran and Iran's proxies are reduced. Israel can't use the threat of ultimate force. Which isn't so bad, kind of MAD (Mutually assured destruction) in the cold war which kept an upper limit on any proxy conflicts between the US and the USSR.

On the other hand, I am terrified that Pakistan has nukes, not because it is not a rational state actor, but it is a weak state, ever in danger of slipping into being a failed stat - huge risk of nukes going rogue, far more than in any other nuclear power.

OK back to aviation, who wants to play risk at my dorm tomorrow?

32andBelow · Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:11 pm

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 14):
Am I the only one that feels terrible for the citizens of North Korea? The sanctions hurt the innocent the most, and many are already starving.

I don't think any lower class NK citizens uses too much jet fuel.

JetBuddy · Sun Feb 28, 2016 1:10 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
Btw I am a little bit confused, why can't DPRK have the bomb? I mean, I don't want it to have the bomb but I don't want France, Pakistan, Israel, China etc to have the bomb. So I don't really see what the ground for sanctions are. Ironic that all five members of the UN Security Council have it.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 15):
The US HAS used it on civilians and no doubt would do it again. United States Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter thought about the idea of possibility nuking North Korea before he became United States Secretary of Defense. Why should anyone have the nuke ?

As this thread has already turned into a discussion about nuclear weapons, I'll respond to this.

Like others have mentioned, the nations that currently possess nuclear weapons have these as a deterrent. The MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) has proven to work for the last 70 years or so. The only reason we haven't had a WW3 yet, is because of nuclear weapons. Nobody wants the world to go under.

Except someone who doesn't have anything to lose. And that's where North Korea comes in. They have already aquired nuclear weapons, and threatened to use them. They are the the most backwards nation in the world, ruled by lunatic brainwashed leaders and pure fear. It is a very volatile situation.

I actually am glad that nuclear weapons exist. They're an insurance policy for peace, but only in the right hands.

And as to Mortyman's point, the US dropped two bombs on Japan to make them give up. The US was in a situation where they either could invade Japan, and risk hundreds of thousands of lives, both japanese and american, civilian and military. Or they could drop a nuclear weapon, and hope the Japanese would surrender. The Japanese didn't surrender after the first one, so they dropped a second one. Then the Japanese gave up, and lives were most likely saved. It was a show of force, not only to the Japanese, but to the whole world. This is the reason they've never been used again.

The Americans aren't the only ones who have discussed the use of nuclear weapons in modern times, the French discussed it as recently as the last Paris attacks. But they have not been used, and with good reason.

As to the topic, North Korea not having access to jet fuel might make them desperate. They'll be in a situation where they will have to ground their Air Force, and might just use them before they run out. Or try to aquire it by force before it's too late.

nighthawk · Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:17 pm

Quoting csavel (Reply 17):
That is why, personally, I have no problem with a nuclear Iran, Iran is a rational state actor, they are not all of a sudden going to lob a nuke to Tel Aviv.

The problem with this is it gives them a tactical advantage in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia sure isn't going to like that, and so they will start their own nuclear program to redress the balance. Which in turn will annoy Yemen. So all of a sudden you have a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions on earth. All it takes is a small war to break out, and you have the potential for nukes to start flying.

Burkhard · Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:19 pm

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 14):
Am I the only one that feels terrible for the citizens of North Korea? The sanctions hurt the innocent the most, and many are already starving.

No you aren't. But while for a.net airlines are the most important thing of the world, for the avarge North Korean it isn't. So a sanction on fuel jet is something which is adequate.

sassiciai · Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:33 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 21):
for the avarge North Korean it isn't

The average NK citizen probably will be blissfully unaware of this topic, as they worry about where their next loaf of bread/bowl of rice will come from, and not too much about aviation fuel tax!

Quite humbling, for most of us sitting comfortably at a PC in a warm room, with plenty of food and drink to hand, while arguing over some A versus B topic that has 0.0% value to anyone's life. But it still makes silly numbers of a.net posters get irritated by their discussions. Wonder what their rhetoric might be like after we moved them to NK! By A380s! LOL!

Mortyman · Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:35 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 18):
I don't think any lower class NK citizens uses too much jet fuel.

No, but it will not be good for the little tourism there is to North Korea and the little contact they have with the outside world. Sanctions / embargo rarely works.

bobnwa · Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:06 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 19):
the French discussed it as recently as the last Paris attacks. But they have not been used, and with good reason.

I doubt that anyone with any authority in the French government discussed that

777way · Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:42 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 19):

And as to Mortyman's point, the US dropped two bombs on Japan to make them give up. The US was in a situation where they either could invade Japan, and risk hundreds of thousands of lives, both japanese and american, civilian and military. Or they could drop a nuclear weapon, and hope the Japanese would surrender. The Japanese didn't surrender after the first one, so they dropped a second one. Then the Japanese gave up, and lives were most likely saved. It was a show of force, not only to the Japanese, but to the whole world. This is the reason they've never been used again.

But they are only invading places ever since and killing hundreds of thousands which they did not wantv to do in Japan, its comes accross as they hated Japnese enough to do that, when invasion was a better option any day.

ec99 · Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Quoting jfkgig (Reply 12):
The collapse of the DPRK is absolutely inevitable, and the Chinese know this. The worst case scenario for the Chinese is to have unification happen with a South Korea that is beholden to the USA. If the Chinese allow the DPRK to act in a threatening manner, they will force South Korea to rely upon the United States, and its tens of thousands of locally stationed troops, for protection. If the Chinese cooperate with South Korea by prodding DPRK to behave rationally, they will move the South Koreans away from the United States, and more allied with China.

This is the most sensible post on this forum. China;s #1 priority is to keep US influence off the Yalu river. For a long time this meant propping up the DPRK. Now, they are starting to realize the regime is struggling and may not be around forever. Because of this, they feel a need to hedge their beds and move closer to the South since in the event of a reunification, the government in Seoul will be setting policy for US influence in the new Korea. Also, only thing worse for China than peaceful reunification is a nuclear or conventional war that results in millions of refugees spilling over the border and then unification. I imagine they are trying to make sure this doesn't happen also.

This is why the Chinese are willing to go along with tougher sanctions. They are rational actors and realize that it may not be feasible to prop up the DPRK long term and will do what is in their best interest.

As for the nuking of Japan, 70 years out people seem to forget the absolute carnage the war involved before August 1945. The USA didn't drop the bomb to help Japan but it is almost certain that ending the war that way instead of an invasion saved large number of Japanese lives. Look at the US and British projections on Japanese casualties for the invasion. All predict 1 million+ Japanese deaths and some much much more. Versus the 250K (top end of range) killed in the atomic bombings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

diverted · Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting 777way (Reply 25):
But they are only invading places ever since and killing hundreds of thousands which they did not wantv to do in Japan, its comes accross as they hated Japnese enough to do that, when invasion was a better option any day.

Quoting ec99 (Reply 26):
As for the nuking of Japan, 70 years out people seem to forget the absolute carnage the war involved before August 1945. The USA didn't drop the bomb to help Japan but it is almost certain that ending the war that way instead of an invasion saved large number of Japanese lives. Look at the US and British projections on Japanese casualties for the invasion. All predict 1 million+ Japanese deaths and some much much more. Versus the 250K (top end of range) killed in the atomic bombings.

Both very good points.

I'd add...when the US dropped the bombs on Japan, they were the only country that had them....there's a 0% chance you'd see anything similar today.

32andBelow · Mon Feb 29, 2016 5:12 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 23):
No, but it will not be good for the little tourism there is to North Korea and the little contact they have with the outside world. Sanctions / embargo rarely works.

If NK wants tourism they need to get their stuff together and stop acting like dicks. Don't some Chinese carriers operate in their too?

eielef · Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:05 am

JS rarely flies, and they'll always get refuelled in VVO or a close Chinese airport (SHE or DLC) which aren't far away from FNJ...
Plus they should have enough reserves (at least of fuel) for the next few years.... FNJ rarely sees more than two flights a day...
I personally agree with Mortyman when he said:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 23):
Sanctions / embargo rarely works.

I'd change it for THEY NEVER work....

ThePointblank · Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:15 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 23):
No, but it will not be good for the little tourism there is to North Korea and the little contact they have with the outside world. Sanctions / embargo rarely works.

No, but their ability to get jet fuel for their air force WOULD be impacted. So we could have a situation where the entire North Korean Air Force is grounded for lack of fuel.

MD11Engineer · Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:26 am

Quoting ec99 (Reply 26):
Quoting jfkgig (Reply 12):
The collapse of the DPRK is absolutely inevitable, and the Chinese know this. The worst case scenario for the Chinese is to have unification happen with a South Korea that is beholden to the USA. If the Chinese allow the DPRK to act in a threatening manner, they will force South Korea to rely upon the United States, and its tens of thousands of locally stationed troops, for protection. If the Chinese cooperate with South Korea by prodding DPRK to behave rationally, they will move the South Koreans away from the United States, and more allied with China.

This is the most sensible post on this forum. China;s #1 priority is to keep US influence off the Yalu river. For a long time this meant propping up the DPRK. Now, they are starting to realize the regime is struggling and may not be around forever. Because of this, they feel a need to hedge their beds and move closer to the South since in the event of a reunification, the government in Seoul will be setting policy for US influence in the new Korea. Also, only thing worse for China than peaceful reunification is a nuclear or conventional war that results in millions of refugees spilling over the border and then unification. I imagine they are trying to make sure this doesn't happen also.

But don't forget one thing: For centuries Korea was a vassal state to imperial China, means, while they were nominally an independent empire with their own emperor, this emperor had to obey orders from Beijing. They, both North and South, have not forgotten this. They both don't want to become Beijing's vassals again.

As for the PRC-North Korean relationship, after NK started threatening the South last year, the PRC moved a few armoured divisions close to the Chinese-North Korean border, just for "exercises", but in reality to tell Kim to wind his neck in.

Jan

Flyingsottsman · Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:34 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 1):
Btw I am a little bit confused, why can't DPRK have the bomb? I mean, I don't want it to have the bomb but I don't want France, Pakistan, Israel, China etc to have the bomb. So I don't really see what the ground for sanctions are. Ironic that all five members of the UN Security Council have it.

Because those countries don't threaten the world with "We are going to attack you because in our minds you are going to attack us" mentality.
The way North Korea are brainwashed, he would not think twice about using a bomb if he thought his country's way of life was threatened.
The only thing about Pakistan is if the Taliban in that country got hold of a bomb.

Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

RE: Dprk Might Be Imposed Total Embargo On Jet Fuel

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net