To plan to continue with a flight accross the Atlantic and (knowingly) land with near-empty tanks is hardly a professional way to operate an aeoplane; not to mention the risk involved in delivering your passengers (safely) to their destination.
That particular Air France Concorde was a 'known' gas-guzzler (as compared to the rest of the fleet), which is why the crew didn't wish to forfeit any additional fuel burn. It was a known 'gas-guzzler' because of a previous heavy landing which 'bent' the u/c; which contributed to the heavy tyre-wear by having to input a known ammount of rudder during the take-off roll; thus compounding the tyre temperature on that side of the aircraft. Was it a contribution? Will we ever know? Speculation will continue for many years to come. The fact remains that the F/E should not have shut-down any engine without the clear and concise order from the Captain. Extreme fire or otherwise; the engines should have been left to do the job being asked of them; at the very least until the gear had been selected UP!
It's only 'too easy' to criticise, after the event, from the comfort of your own armchair; however, Air France appear to be 'lax' in providing any cause for blame to their crewmmbers in not adhering to standard procedures. It 'might' have been recoverable; but we'll never know for sure.
TCF