The reality is that JFK-LHR and JFK-CDG were not really very long flights to begin with. I'm not sure why the Concorde was used for those routings.
But for routings like ORD-HKG or JFK-NRT, I think a faster airplane would be a good solution. These flights, when I've flown them (actually PVG-ORD and ORD-NRT), have been completely full in first and business class -- and first class is over $10,000 one way. I think people would be OK with a smaller seat if it meant they were in the air for 6 hours instead of 13. 13 hours is a lot of time to kill, even if you have a fully-flat bed and laptop power. (For me, anyway. I can't sleep on planes at all, even in the good seats.)
I don't completely agree with your numbers about travel time to and from the airport though. It takes me 45 minutes to take the subway from my house to ORD, and then 30 minutes to get from check-in to the gate (10 minutes before departure, of course). So that's 2 hours on one end. On the other end, it's never taken me more than 2 hours to get from an airport to city center... even in Tokyo (where the airport isn't even in the same prefecture as Tokyo). London is particularly easy; immigration is pretty efficient, and the express trains to Paddington are very fast.
Anyway, I think the Concorde discontinuation was due to "maximizing shareholder value" rather than revenue issues. Concorde was considered the "best" option between two cities that had Concorde service, but it was usually less expensive than "real" first class. That is a lost revenue opportunity, Concorde resulted in less profit per passenger-mile, and it cannibalized the super-profitable high-end business.
(That's what's really holding society back -- shareholders.)
But for routings like ORD-HKG or JFK-NRT, I think a faster airplane would be a good solution. These flights, when I've flown them (actually PVG-ORD and ORD-NRT), have been completely full in first and business class -- and first class is over $10,000 one way. I think people would be OK with a smaller seat if it meant they were in the air for 6 hours instead of 13. 13 hours is a lot of time to kill, even if you have a fully-flat bed and laptop power. (For me, anyway. I can't sleep on planes at all, even in the good seats.)
I don't completely agree with your numbers about travel time to and from the airport though. It takes me 45 minutes to take the subway from my house to ORD, and then 30 minutes to get from check-in to the gate (10 minutes before departure, of course). So that's 2 hours on one end. On the other end, it's never taken me more than 2 hours to get from an airport to city center... even in Tokyo (where the airport isn't even in the same prefecture as Tokyo). London is particularly easy; immigration is pretty efficient, and the express trains to Paddington are very fast.
Anyway, I think the Concorde discontinuation was due to "maximizing shareholder value" rather than revenue issues. Concorde was considered the "best" option between two cities that had Concorde service, but it was usually less expensive than "real" first class. That is a lost revenue opportunity, Concorde resulted in less profit per passenger-mile, and it cannibalized the super-profitable high-end business.
(That's what's really holding society back -- shareholders.)