What are political motivations for keeping the Burnelli Lifting Body from flying commercially?

Before we proceed:

1. What is politics? Politics is the application of pressure to effect desired economic outcome(s) or the "...use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control" (Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, Random House, New York, 1968)
2. What is a crime? A crime may be defined to be any act done in violation of those duties which an individual owes to the community.
3. What is one of the primary elements a detective looks for when trying to solve a crime? He looks for 'who gained' from the crime (follow the money).

Keep the above in mind while you read.

If you've read the page from the Congressional Record, (downloadable above), you understand that a small group of banksters and other characters (some: manufacturers, others: manufacturers-to-be) set up a cartel in 1917.

When you read further into this web-site, in particular, when you look at the Carisi report which is found in the Suppression Section, you'll see that the structural cost of building a Burnelli airframe is half that of the conventional; further, McDonnell Douglas says their Burnelli-type Blended Wing Body (BWB) megajet burns 30% less fuel than a conventional jet of equal size.

Further, according to Boeing, with similar power, their twin-engine Burnelli type B-754 had a maximum containerized payload of 160,000 lbs., while the B-767 could only carry less than half, 72,770 lbs., non-containerized. In short, the Burnelli type could carry more than double the payload and fly it 1,200 nautical miles further than the B-767!

All the advantages are there, right? Nope. It all depends on who you are and how you gain! Who owns the majority of aircraft today? Airlines? No! Banks? YEP (either directly or indirectly - through financing and leasing companies).

The cost of each aircraft is astronomical, hence most aircraft are leased from banks (who own their own leasing companies), and if they're not leased, the Airline is paying the bank on the loan for the purchase of the aircraft. Say you're the bank; do you make more money on a $150 million aircraft or one costing substantially less? You got it. In addition, if you stay with the conventional aircraft, don't you get to make loans on TWICE as many aircraft, since the Burnelli would carry twice the payload and cost nearly half as much to build? In addition, due to higher take-off and landing speeds, you can't build airliners carrying 800-passengers without having to lengthen runways all over the world.

Who gains? If the airlines wanted to buy Burnelli-type aircraft, could they? Would the banks give them loans? We don't know, it hasn't gotten that far yet.  What do you think?

We're dealing with a multi-billion dollar industry, which doesn't care one whit whether it kills several thousand people each year. They're corporations, and everyone in those corporations is afraid of losing his/her job (as are those who work for the government), and so they do what they are told: what is best for the corporations ($s) and for the government (saving face), all for the benefit of the Bankers (which President Andrew Jackson had warned us about - see his warning in the Hot Topics section under Index). Those who have the courage to speak up get tossed out or are run over roughshod as was Rodney Stich, a former FAA inspector who has recounted his many run-ins with FAA management over blatant safety violations only to be told to retract his report or face transfer or worse.