Ozzy, you need to bear in mind that the 747 is a totally different situation. It has been developed, advanced and is still in production.
The Concorde went out of production after just 16 production aircraft were manufactured two and a half decades ago, and those self same airframes are the ones being maintained and operated now. This creates a massive onus on manufacturer (now Airbus) support and one which is technically harder and harder to muster. It was a uniquely complex machine even then, using advanced designs which didn't subsequently benefit from modernisation and advancement and so the costs, and the actual technical ability to keep it on the ever evolving civil certification, are spiralling exponentially. Concorde is not Windows XP Pro!!
Concorde II, Concorde B, or whatever may well have had Virgin Atlantic liveries on it as well - but it doesn't exist, and that is why it is hard for everybody (me included) to accept Concorde's retirement. Believe me, I would have teeth pulled to continue flying this unique aeroplane - I believe it is the best airliner ever built for many reasons - but we have to accept (kicking and screaming admittedly) that all good things must come to and end.
Yes, RB is a brilliant self-publicist and hats off to him for it. But the constant cheap shots at BA for a situation which is not of their doing (if it wasn't for some quite brilliant marketing and millions and millions of technical and commercial investment from BA in the '80s Concorde would not be here now to argue about) are unfair and often downright wrong (e.g. the £1 per plane myth) - that's where the frustration comes from.