It wasn't banned entirely, it just wasn't permitted to travel at supersonic speeds over land (or, IIRC territorial waters) which limited its appeal for destinat

It wasn't banned entirely, it just wasn't permitted to travel at supersonic speeds over land (or, IIRC territorial waters) which limited its appeal for destinations not on the east coast. This overland supersonic ban was not just imposed by America either. Also as airports and their airspace became more crowded, sometimes the landing slots allocated would add flight time so some of the benefit of crossing the Atlantic so fast was lost there. It wasn't as popular as envisaged for other reasons too: it turns out that people aren't as willing to compromise on comfort for the faster flight time anyway, people who could afford the luxury were more likely to spend the extra on comfort rather than saving time. This kept prices high because there was not enough demand to expand the service which might have dragged prices lower, rounding off a vicious economic circle. Prices were also inflated by the fuel requirements per passenger flight hour, both in general and because the craft was not fuel efficient at sub-sonic speeds. Furthermore: at least one of those accidents was due to the craft's design and therefore its safety – the one out of Paris in 2000. Though the flaw that caused that to be possible (part of the fuel tank being exposed while the landing gear was down, allowing debris, in this case parts from the planes own front tire in turn damaged by hitting other debris on the runway, to compromise it) was later mitigated that was a real killer for passenger confidence on an already struggling service. Having said that about the accident, IIRC Concorde does have one of the best safety records of any aircraft overall when considered against total passenger flight hours, much like flying in general is statistically safer than other forms of transport despite individual incidents tending to be worse.