Be that as it may, I think the trials of the builders of the Concord(e) and Airbus with the A380 are similar and stem from the same source.
The Concord(e) was a marvelous product that had no market. Furthermore, this was predictable before the first rivet was set. The decision to develop and build the Concord(e) was based on a political decision to build a SST, and the financial and market analysis had nothing to do with it, because the European governments could always be counted on to cover the losses.
American companies do not have that luxury. Sure, they make a bad decision from time to time, but the errors are usually of improper analysis, not of ignoring analysis.
I see a similar scenario developing for the A380. This aircraft is too large for most routes and will have a very hard time earning customer acceptance. Furthermore, the weight issues may make the fuel and/or payload unacceptably small, particularly for the cargo variant. But things like payload, range and consumer acceptance simply don't matter, because the objective was to build the largest airliner in the World, and that objective has been achieved. If the thing never earns a dime, that is no problem, because the manufacturer can just soak the European taxpayer for the loss.
I can agree with all those observations.
If airlines want to continue growth on valuable international routes like London, Frankfurt, Tokyo etc. they will need larger planes.
There are routes today where a 747 just isn't big enough and they will grow over time.