But the future of supersonic transport in general was cut short not because of some statistical failing, but simply because it no longer shared the same political support as subsonic aviation.
It's not that simple. Political support didn't diminish for no good reason. When you talk about Concorde, or any supersonic vehicle, you cannot ignore what used to be called "the sound barrier".
In a sense, it really is a barrier; not so much physical, but financial. If the drag curve between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.8 was just a similar extension of the drag curve between Mach 0.5 and Mach 0.8 (i.e. a simple V squared relationship), then the political support along with the economic viability of supersonic airliners would mean rich folks could still buy a fast ride across the Atlantic. And, if there were no sonic boom either, then these fast airliners would be flying everywhere and be even more viable.
But that huge spike in the real-world drag curve as you pass through transonic air-speeds and the steep power-required curve beyond that forms what amounts to a really big spike in the money required to operate at high Mach numbers both from an initial hardware point of view but, more importantly, in the money required to both fuel and maintain such exotic airplanes. Pile the sonic boom issues on top of those costs, and it's no suprise very few people have ever gone supersonic.
Political support for the Concorde didn't simply go out of fashion. It faded for very good reasons, mostly related to good old Mother Nature and the odd shape of the real-world drag curve.