>>1476430Airports have defined approach paths. For Concorde to make entire zip codes uninhabitable, all of New York would've had to be uninhabitable in the 1970s when 707s were regularly blasting out the same noise levels.
(Now, New York was uninhabitable in the 1970s but that's a different story.)
Not that it matters because noise isn't what got Concorde killed, it was killed by economics. All I'm saying is the complainers overall were unsympathetic idiots. You really think the kind of people who went out to actively protest Concorde were guys who heard it from miles and miles away due to particularly unlucky wind configurations? Anyone worth listening to would be campaigning against aircraft noise levels in general rather than picking on one specific plane in limited service. (Especially in the 1970s where there's a legitimate health case against Airport noise levels from that period: It's just a shame anti-Concorde protestors in that period decided not to make it.)
>>1476441Concorde wasn't going supersonic over cities though, it was specifically banned from doing it over land. What happened is that idiots heard "Concorde makes a sonic boom" and complained about the noise from the boom even though all they were actually hearing was regular jet engine noise.
Not being able to fly overland helped kill Concorde overall (by making it a less viable commercial proposition) but the final nail in the coffin was economic.
