LMD
Concorde was ‘operationally’ commercially viable when conceived and later proved to be very much so for BA. The funding of the build was expensive at the time due to the European reccesion and other factors, however both countries were in a no break clause to finish the project. Concorde could have had a healthy return much earlier if two things had happened.
One was if overland supersonic flying had got approval it would have opened many more airports to Concorde. Changing the rules after so much money had been spent was way out of order. Of the main approved airports, as we all know, one was fraught with severe political delays that were costly and unfounded!
The second reason was a major withdrawing of options to buy, led by several US airlines, leaving the two manufacturing countries picking up the tab. What happened behind the scenes is anyones guess but not very hard to imagine.
A considerably larger tab was picked up by the US government (several times over) with no aircraft to show for it. The government withdrew its funding from Boeing and other SST projects because they felt that there wasn’t room for two SST airframes in the existing climate, especially when Boeing’s version was two years behind Concorde.
With a large home market the new aircraft, if it arrives, should be a success, proving all sceptical people wrong, but that’s ten years off. Concorde’s been there and done that nearly thirty years ago. Don’t knock it.
Thanks Ratboy for the B70 note. That WAS an aircraft!