Reading this article it seems that the Captain is all but blaming Concorde's demise on Air France's pressures on Airbus to ground the plane.
I appreciate his emotional attachment to the plane and I don't dispute his reconstructions of the events that led to the crash, but Concorde would've been grounded nonetheless; perhaps not as early as it did, but I'm ready to bet that it wouldn't have survived the $150/barrel era of the late 2000s. That and the fact that a lot of the spare parts, as I've been told by those who worked on it, were becoming hard to find - especially engines and gyroscopes.
However iconic Concorde was, it never become a truly 'reliable' plane, one that could be used day in, day out. A former colleague used to refer to BA's fleet as a fleet of prototype, each one with their own peculiarities and idiosyncrasies. Not exactly your bog standard A320 if you see what I mean.
There used to be a rumour, internally, that Concorde never turned a profit; and that when Branson found out the actual maintenance and upkeep costs, he obviously backed down from his offer (not before blaming BA for not having accepted it, as it's his custom). Concorde was surely an epic machine, but a machine borne in an era where profitability and efficiency where unknown concept in the industry. Today a machine that had to have another one next door on standby in case it went tech, a machine that couldn't fly supersonic overland, would be all but useless. Unfortunately.