> It lost money consistently all the time. > The only reason it kept flying for 33 years is a vanity project for national airlines. Something that loses money

> It lost money consistently all the time. > The only reason it kept flying for 33 years is a vanity project for national airlines. Something that loses money, but not so much money that it can't be justified as a vanity project, seems like the sort of thing that could be profitable with tweaks and improvements. Like it didn't work, but it was close enough to working that reasonable investors could say: second time will be the charm. Especially given how much more mature aeroplane technology is now vs the 1950s. To put it in perspective, we first broke the sound barrier in 1947. People started designing the concorde in 1954 only 7 years later. It is now three quarters of a century later. Technology has improved a lot since then.