The problem with supersonic commercial jets was mainly one of marketing/politics. The so called "sonic boom" problem was vastly overhyped, as anyone who lives near an air force base can tell you.
The conspiracy theorist tells me the American aerospace manufacturers at the time (Boening, McDonnell-Douglas, etc.), did everything they could to kill the Concorde. With limited flyable routes (NYC and DC to Paris and London I think were the only ones), the financials didn't make sense. If overland routes were available, especially opening up LA, San Francisco and Chicago, it might have been a different story.
>as anyone who lives near an air force base can tell you.
In the US, the Air Force is simply not allowed to fly supersonic anywhere near a city or a suburb with only a few exceptions.
One exception is Edwards Air Force Base in the California desert: there are houses nearby, but the base (and supersonic warplanes) preceded the construction of the homes, so the reasoning is that the home builders and home buyers knew what they were buying into.
Another exception (quoting Google Gemini):
>From 1964 to 1966, the FAA and U.S. Air Force conducted supersonic flights over
St. Louis and other cities like Oklahoma City to gauge public reaction to daily
sonic booms. The goal was to understand public tolerance for commercial
supersonic transport (SST) operations. Reactions in St. Louis, as elsewhere,
were largely negative, contributing to the eventual ban on commercial
supersonic flight over land in the U.S.
Have you have experienced sonic booms? I have (when my family visited West Germany in 1970) and I certainly would not want to be subjected to them regularly.
Seems... wrong. Booms broke windows and drove zillions of complaints. Supersonic flight near airbases is controlled and happens on specific traffic corridors, right?
The conspiracy theorist tells me the American aerospace manufacturers at the time (Boening, McDonnell-Douglas, etc.), did everything they could to kill the Concorde. With limited flyable routes (NYC and DC to Paris and London I think were the only ones), the financials didn't make sense. If overland routes were available, especially opening up LA, San Francisco and Chicago, it might have been a different story.