Wasn't Concorde virtually a planned fuel emergency? Practically from the moment of take-off. And worse from Paris than from London to the USA, because the distance is (slightly!) further?
I formed the impression that the only reason that it didn't happen more often was the the Corcorde captains were so bloody good that they thought about it before the problems arose, and knew how to play the system when they did arise.
I always thought that, in terms of fuel management, Concorde was a bit like the civilian equivalent of flying a (RAF) Lightning. A friend of mine once told me that the Lightning was the only aircraft he had ever flown on which you could really see the fuel gauge indicator needle actually physically moving, once the burners were plugged in.
Just to set the record straight, I have never flown either Concorde or Lightning, so if anybody wants to shoot me down, please go ahead,
All the best,
Oxford Blue