<The statistics can be quite surprising sometimes.>
That's true. But to para-phrase Mark Twain, "There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics." He may have been commenting on how statistics may be misleading or used to mislead. While accidents per takeoff/landing cycle is one measure often quoted in aviation safety statistics, so is accidents per hour flown. Obviously, which statistic you choose to quote would affect the relative safety comparison of a short-haul vs long-haul aircraft types. How much payload was hauled what distance in the 747 vs the 737? What if you measured the risk in terms of accidents per payload miles? Or speed? Costs and risks (challenges) increase exponentially when we seek to fly long distances at supersonic speeds. These cost and risk factors are probably (IMHO) responsible for leaving Concorde as the only civil supersonic transport through it's entire service life. (Disregarding the Soviet effort.) But the benefit of time savings must be weighed against this risk and the cost. The lowest risk and lowest cost option is to merely stay home. Risk of being involved in an air crash is then nearly zero. No risk, no cost and no reward. Too bad it was such a small proportion of the public that would or could pay for a Concorde ticket. Had it been otherwise, Lockheed, Boeing and perhaps other partners would have entered the market. Make no mistake, the US government would have played along if it were thought to be profitable at the time, just as they would today. In our form of "market economy", most political issues can be resolved by profitability analysis. (for better or worse) In it's day, the Concorde design was a marvel of modern engineering. Sadly, it was not as profitable as hoped. Proper credit should be given to all the people who designed, built, flew and kept this wonderful bird flying as long as they did. If a new SST or SSBJ is built, it will also be in very small number. The cost will be affected by this economic reality as well as the engineering and operational risk factors. Subsonic, low cost per seat-mile, ever quieter airliners with improved "safety systems"are the mainstream goal of the civil aviation industry for the foreseeable future. Hopefully there will still be some new aircraft built that push back the boundries a bit. For doing this, Concorde will remain a sentimental favorite in my and many other's memory for a long time to come. But then, it was built during an era of great hopes and aspirations. For better and/or worse, the present era seems to reflect different values and goals. Perhaps we could call it the era of profitability optimization? No, sounds too cynical! I'm sure someone else can do better.
Best to all,
Westhawk