Is it time for a new Concorde type airliner?

That solves the fuel tank safety problem,
that can carry more passengers (a bit larger),
that can travel even faster,
that primarily flies over the oceans,
that can efficiently go subsonic near airports (reducing sonic boom problem).

The Concorde did make a profit.

Yes

There are at least two companies working on one, so pull your head out of the sand.

And NO, the Concorde NEVER made a profit because it was heavily government subsidized.

The CONCORDE was a child of the 1960's, and built on the technology that was available at that time. It was a financial failure from the first. Entirely too expensive to operate and maintain and the two airlines that used them lost money on every flight.
If there was a SERIOUS demand for such an airplane, the world's aircraft manufacturers would be fighting with each other to see who could get one to market first. As it is… NOBODY today really wants one.

The Concorde made a profit because of an accounting trick. Neither Air France or British Airways had to worry about aircraft depreciation since there was nothing coming along to replace it.

NASA has an X-plane project to demonstrate a "quiet" sonic boom. If the project is successful we may see some new supersonic airliners. If a new supersonic airliner does emerge it will most likely be smaller and slower than the Concorde, 35-55 all premium seats and will fly at Mach 1.6.

Concorde only made a profit because most of the huge costs were written off.

I think you will find that Boeing are developing one.

What a phucktardian.

The Concorde did not really make a profit overall.
Sure, operationally, if the tickets are priced to a huge amount, the fuel bill can be paid, but the point is that the BUILDER did not make any money, assembling and supporting a fleet of only 14 in service airliners (plus 6 prototypes that were never put in service).

For instance, from Boeing's perspective, the break even point was 250 planes for the 777. For the 787, it is likely that that figure was in the order of 500 to 600 planes, so that program is just now showing a profit (and even then, no one is really sure if it IS making a profit *overall*, i.e. Not taking into account the losses that were already absorbed).
A supersonic aircraft will be considerably more expensive to design, test and certify than the 787 was, but the fact is that this cost, by itself, will reduce its appeal. Too expensive will mean it will not sell very well, which will reduce the number of plane to amortize the development costs on, which will drive the price further up.

But there's more, and that is really the nail in the coffin.
Suppose that this supersonic aircraft is destined along the parameters of the 767-200ER (214 passengers in two class, range of 6500 NM to cross oceans). 121 767-200ER were produced. Heck, assume that it would also replace the 767-300ER (583 produced, the most popular variant).

So we're talking about 700 airplane.
How many of those would *actually* be replaced by a supersonic airplane of comparable capacity and performance (save for the speed)? Half? One quarter?
If the price of the ticket is so much higher, and that people do not mind their flight lasting 8 hours instead of 4, given that you have to be at the airport a couple of hours early because of all those security checks and delays, I'm sure most people would likely fly supersonic only 10% or 20% of the time, tops. They would fly out of curiosity, for the trill, a few times, but the bulk of their flight would still be the slower, cheaper alternative.

So, lets assume, generously, that 1/5 of the 767ER would be replaced by the supersonic Mach2-767
How many planes is that?
1/5 of 700 planes is 140. So you replace 140 767.
But here is the catch. How many Mach2-767 are needed to replace 140 767?
70.
Why?
Because they fly twice as fast, so would be flying twice as frequently.
And you just cut your market in half.
You want to go faster still, say Mach 3?
Fine. Now you will sell only 50 Mach3-767.

The development of an aircraft takes about a decade. The 787 was first announced in 2003, and went in service in 2011. Expect this delay to be longer for a supersonic, because the plane would have to be flight tested at low speed (takeoff and landing) subsonic cruise speed (because of flight overland and around airport, and even if there was no restriction, the fact is that the plane has to fly efficiently at Mach 0.8 anyway on the way to faster speed) and high Mach number flight.
You will need new engines, refined aerodynamics suitable to both flight regimes, fuel transfer capability to trim the aircraft, since flight at supersonic speed makes the wing produce lift at the middle of the chord, while subsonic center of lift is at the 1/4 of the wing width -- the Concorde had a fuel tank in the tail that was empty during subsonic flight, when reaching Mach 1, fuel was transferred from the wing tanks to the tail tank to keep balance. You will need costlier material able to stand the heat,
And you will have to pay all this UP FRONT, since airlines like to pay for their plane on delivery.

So, where would Boeing, Airbus and whoever wants to try to make such a plane going to find the funds to pay for this massive development (the 787 program has cost $32 billion until entry in service; therefore you may expect $100 billion for the Mach3-767, at least).
For a market of perhaps 50 planes?
5 planes a year for 10 years, maybe?
With each plane selling for $2 billion (6 to 8 times the cost of a 787)?
Let's do some more math.
A $2 billion plane, flying 250 passengers per flight, with say 6 hours block time (i.e. 4 hours of flight + 2 hours of slow speed maneuvering, gate docking, passenger boarding and deplaning, refueling, between flight cleaning and servicing) would therefore offer 1000 seats per day, if it is 100% full all the time. Let's assume a 80% fill ratio -- current values are between 75 to 85, industry wide; so 800 actual passengers.
An aircraft would fly for about 25 years before the cost of spares increase too much, and that major components reach their fatigue life limit.
So the plane will carry about 7 million people before being retired.
Divide the price of the plane ($2 billion) by 7 million and you get $285.
That is the part of the price of the ticket due ONLY to the cost of the plane. That does not include the price of fuel, the salary of the crew, of the ground crew, of the maintenance and replacement parts, or the cost of financing (airline will not want to pay $2 billion, they will get a bank loan, so will be paying interest while amortizing the price).

How many times will YOU fly in a Mach3-767 over 25 years?
10 times? Perhaps 20?
I therefore suggest that you gather 10 times the $285 for your contribution to the plane cost and send a check, right away, to Boeing, and find a few million people to do the same thing, to show your genuine interest.

Can't do it?

Well, that is the sad part. No one else wants to pay up front. But that is what Boeing and Airbus would have to do.

A supersonic aircraft will not happen until the banks are willing to loan the money and wait 15 years for the first refund payment.
Sorry, but that is not going to happen soon.

And believe me, no one is more frustrated than us aerospace engineer, because we'd LOVE to design a supersonic airliner. But no one wants to pay.

Yes