I'm with you.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll copy/paste a portion of my long response to the article on FT's home page today (http://www.flyertalk.com/the-wing/ch...r-koryo.html):

The point about safety is interesting. The EU expressed numerous concerns back in 2006. Surely, many were true. But some also had to do with the lack of transparency from Air Koryo, and the fact that it was virtually impossible for anyone to inspect their practices. If that’s the case, why did the EU lift the ban for the TU-204s a couple years later? Nothing had changed in terms of communication or overall policy—only the airframes had changed.

In fact, it’s worth mentioning that Air Koryo hasn’t had a single accident since the 80s. At the end of the day, one of the airline’s primary goals is to serve their government, and they wouldn’t want their elite to be killed. Carrying passengers is a more or less a side business that generates hard currency. Two potential facts that support this theory are the surprising number of military/government airfields within the country, and the fact that flight times and equipment change almost at the last minute based on the government’s need (it’s happened to me.)

I’m not naive, airframe fatigue is a concern with vintage aircraft. But the planes do fly, and no one has been injured in decades. And without being sarcastic, I’d point out that the pilots in command of these venerable machines might know a bit more about flying than their younger counterparts in other parts of the world (see the transcript from the Air France Rio/Paris flight, for an example.)

Aviation safety is a complex matter. It has many moving parts. It's easy to be biased in favor of our western airlines, but it takes more than modern aircraft to ensure safety.