but it seems at least possible that Branson failed to purchase the Concordes not because of high maintance, bad economics and a lack of financing options, but rather that it may have been determined, by someone other than Branson, that the planes have significant design flaws and that flying them would very likely result in additional accidents and loss of life.
The commonly quoted scenario goes something like:
1) Operating Concorde is bleeding AF white. They've lost one, nearly lose another at Halifax, the "freedom fries" antipathy means they're carrying 8 or 10 passengers at a time to/from the US on their scheduled services.
2) Upcoming alliance and EU rules mean AF financial losses have to be stemmed swiftly and govt subsidy is (notionally at least) illegal. No quick answer to Concorde losses so it has to go.
3) Airbus say to BA "now you're the sole operator you'll have to carry entire support cost".
4) BA say "unfair, give us a bit of time". Airbus say "OK, six months".
5) No way to make it work so 6 months later the tearful goodbyes.
6) The planes belong to BA. Given previous antipathy a willing sale seems unlikely.
7) To operate it Branson would also have to take on the
entire BA resource. Dare say a large number of that resource would not be prepared to make the swap either.
8) Return to point 3 above.
9) Insert national pride &/or superior knowledge where appropriate.