dellzeqq said:
I'm going to be a bit picky and point out that Concorde was a commercial failure from the word go
For the manufacturer, but BA eventually turned it into a commercial success (and please don't start the £1 extra aircraft argument - that's highly misleading and will lead to me doing a lengthy Concorde geek reply

).
On the contrary, for a supersonic aircraft it was fantastically efficient, which was what gave it the range to cross the Atlantic.
and ended up being grounded after a terrible accident
Temporarily grounded after an accident, something which has happened to many successful aircraft. Once the new fuel tank membranes had been fitted, it got its CoA back again and resumed operation.
Even after AF (who completely botched their Concorde marketing) ceased operation, BA's Concorde operations
still remained profitable, despite then picking up 100% of the manufacturer support costs instead of 50% of them.
What killed it was 9-11: Concorde was unique in being heavily dependent on a small number of regular travellers, most of them flying once a week. 44 of those passengers died in the WTC.