The main reason the airlines managed to run Concorde at a profit is because they bought the planes for quite cheap. At one point the British government even sold two planes to British airways for £1 each. [0]

The airlines might have profited, but the R&D and manufacturing programs were a more or less write offs.

[1] https://simpleflying.com/british-airways-1-pound-concorde/

It also ran on only two routes for most of that time, with all others shut down because airlines lost money operating Concorde on them even without having to pay off the capital costs.

The Concorde was also blocked from flying a lot of profitable routes because of sonic boom concerns, some justified, others less so. In particular, you can't legally fly over any part of the US at Mach 1 or faster unless you're military.

The problem is that there's no realistic way to fly across the US, supersonically, without massively impacting a substantial fraction of the electorate (who will enthusiastically vote for anyone who will stop the noise).

You can read about the supersonic experiments over Oaklahoma City in the 1960's to learn about the effects of sonic booms, and why people don't like them.

For reference, the Space Shuttle generated annoying sonic booms over west Los Angeles when landing at Edwards Airforce Base. The approach path to Edwards is more than 30 miles from west LA. So, for any supersonic airway, you'd need to set aside a roughly 60-70 mile wide swath of land. That's a lot of people voting to shut down your SST operation (or suing you).

Sure, but I don't see a startup called Boom changing the political landscape around sonic boom concerns, particularly not in an era where there's also a lot of environmental lobbying.

if they revive the noise implications they might well manage to change it. IMO those restrictions are also because it wasn't an American jet so it kept the competition out.

Agreed on both points, but they're fighting against the physics of sonic booms, not just Concorde's noisy turbojet [a solved problem] so I wouldn't bank on it, and lobbying against Boeing as well as an environmental lobby that's far more influential now than in the seventies.

Several European states without commercial airframers introduced supersonic overflight bans too and the Anti Concorde Project started in the UK so I don't think the argument it was all protectionism stands up anyway.

I think this issue was range. Many of the over ocean routes it simply couldn't fly. One of the reason BOOM believes in themselves is that they open up many more routes.

Boom's planned range of 4,500 nm is actually only a marginal improvement on Concorde's 3,900. Their site advertises routes like "LA-Sydney", but at ~6,500 nm this won't work without a refueling stop.

if it weren't for the concorde, airbus wouldn't really exist and be able to compete with boeing. so while your point isn't untrue, it's also fair to say that it ended up paying huge dividends and was worth it.

On top of that, none of the things mentioned were big problems during the 80s when the concord was in its peak. Security just started ramping up after the wave of 1970s hijackings that necessitated security at airports

It crashed because of a fault on another airplane, a 5 Kg titanium strip from a DC10 entered the wing at very high speed. Not a lot of aircraft of the day would have survived such an impact.

Almost all jetliners of the day would have survived it because their tires wouldn’t lushest accelerated it to 300 MPH.

These are true but with Air France what made it profitable were all the special and charter flights...

And realistically it also failed because while flying west makes sense as you could land "before" you took off, going east didn't work like that. Sure you're losing less time either way compared to a regular flight but flying east, you might as well take a slow flight to get some shuteye.

This problem still hasn't been solved.