I think there is an enormous market for something like Concorde now, much more than there was before. The amount of super rich has increased massively (and each of them have way more money). I think you'd even see executives using it over their own private jets for the speed increase - which means tickets could be crazy expensive, as operating a jet is very pricey.
I suppose it'd depend a bit on if you could get WiFi on it though. Wonder if that is possible at supersonic speeds?
So let's imagine you live in New York and have a meeting in Paris- and let's say, for the purpose of argument, that it's actually a transporter, instantaneous travel from airport to airport. You leave your house at 6AM, get to the airport at 7AM. Its an international flight, so you need to get to the airport early, so your flight leaves at 8AM. You instantaneously arrive in Paris, but that's six hours time zone different: 2PM in Paris. Two hours to navigate through customs and the airport and it's 4PM, an hour to do ground transport to your meeting and it's already 5PM.
So even with exactly zero travel time between JFK->CDG your meeting can't be conducted at normal business times. So if your meeting still requires traveling out the day before and dealing with jet lag and all the rest, there just isn't that much benefit to justify the costs.
It might make sense for a business jet, so long as the costs are really not much more than a GV, or if it's primarily about prestige anyway.
As for the wait time at the airport: if you're buying premium tickets the airline doesn't care how late you arrive as long as you don't delay the flight. IIRC, at least for domestic travel TSA requires that all checked luggage be presented at least 30 minutes prior to departure, so that's the only hard time limit. Maybe it's earlier for international travel, but for a single day itinerary you presumably wouldn't have any checked luggage.
It would be faster to get through the CDG customs lines if you had a Schengen citizenship, since they could get into the the Schengen lines, but that's not really particularly useful advice.
There are two real reasons this no longer works; first the international travelling class has turned out to be far greedier and care less about their lives than anyone imagined, secondly Skype.
As far as travel versus communications goes, from what I can see improving communications technology places a higher premium on travel than before, not less. Easier for senior executives to stay in touch with HQ on the go, but that ability means that relationship building is now more important.
But traveling? In 1985, you could somewhat stay in touch by telephone (but generally not cell phone) though it was easier if you had a dedicated assistant and international long distance was rather variable. And sending documents probably involved faxes. While meetings/flights/time zones mean I may not always be reachable when traveling on business today, it's a lot easier than it was 30 years ago.
On the topic of WiFi, SpaceX is able to return video from the Falcon 9 on ascent and descent in many cases. So even though the very high Doppler and tracking problems involved in wireless communication to a rocket are not trivial, they're already doing it.
One of the challenges Virgin Galactic ran into in its sales efforts was the high co-incidence between (a) people who can pay for a super-expensive form of transport and (b) people whose Board, limited partnership or employment agreements prohibit them from doing super-risky stuff.
All the gear would have been put in a transit and driven up by one of the technicians
It was also noisy and cramped. Fantastic though, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience and a wonderful thing to have done.
If you felt the window, it was warm to the touch vs. cold on a subsonic. Outside window was much smaller than subsonic.
The sound of the air passing by was closer to a sizzling sound in super cruise vs. what we hear on subsonic.
Take off had a noticeably faster groundspeed before rotation.
60-90 seconds (I forget, depends on airport) after departing the runway, throttles were reduced and you felt the plane slow quickly and the plane's angle of attack was reduced. This was for noise abatement and they explained this prior to takeoff so not as to alarm you. Leaving JFK on 31L included a sharp left bank as soon as wheels up to follow the shoreline and avoid populated areas. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j-3003jtuY
After leaving populated area, throttles were pushed to full and climb resumed. If all went according to flight plan, Concorde would be at .95 Mach shortly and get the OK to go supersonic.
Afterburners. You felt them getting turned on to go supersonic. They were turned on in pairs - one on each side. Felt like someone was gently pushing you from behind.
No turbulence - would fly above the weather.
Landing was like being in a recliner. High angle of attach on the approach. Once down on all wheels, NOISE as the reversers kicked in.
The delta wing didn't flex like subsonic wings do, so any bumps during climb or decent felt a bit more sharp (less bouncy/spongy? hard to find the words). Maybe it was just me.
Other than that, it's the same as a regular subsonic.
10/10 would do again. Need time travel.
That's pretty much it... I enjoyed it but it wasn't life altering.
Was it worth it? Probably not for most. It was worth it just to have had the experience, in my case. I'd always wanted to go and they were shutting down. So, I went. At the time, I could have spent the money more wisely, but I don't regret it.
I think it was in '03 and the price was just something like $12,000 for the two flights. It was high enough that I put it on a credit card. The prices had a lot of variation and I flew first class but they had a higher class that they called Concorde, as I recall.