> So, is there a replacement coming for the Concorde?
Unlikely. Flying supersonic is expensive, and the larger the jet the more expensive it is.
The market for people willing to pay significantly more for a somewhat shorter flight is way too small, people much prefer cheaper flights (hence the success of Ryanair and similar) and those who would/could be willing to pay for it will use private or shared charter jets instead.
Note that even the POTUS doesn't care, Air Force One is a militarised 747-200.
I believe Airbus is partnering with a startup that is working on a supersonic biz-jet called the Aerion. This probably makes more commercial sense than a large transport - people already willing to spend USD 100 million on a jet will spend USD 120 million to fly faster and quicker.
> Note that even the POTUS doesn't care, Air Force One is a militarised 747-200.
No president has really had a chance to choose super sonic vs subsonic. There's never really been a plane big enough to support the whole retinue and support apparatus that POTUS travels with that's capable of super sonic flight.
The FA says that the perception that the Concorde was expensive was incorrect and that the airlines raised it's tickets costs to match that incorrect perception.
No, it says customers thought the Concorde more expensive than it actually was, that's a very different statement. That people thought Concorde tickets more expensive than they were doesn't mean they were cheap by any stretch of imagination.
Unlikely. Flying supersonic is expensive, and the larger the jet the more expensive it is.
The market for people willing to pay significantly more for a somewhat shorter flight is way too small, people much prefer cheaper flights (hence the success of Ryanair and similar) and those who would/could be willing to pay for it will use private or shared charter jets instead.
Note that even the POTUS doesn't care, Air Force One is a militarised 747-200.