ContinentalEWR is just another purveyor of myths.
Tyres are not a structural item, they a short life, replaceable item and can be re-designed.
The proximity of the engines is a debateable point and there is no evidence, either in the July accident or previously, of FOD or blade failure damage in one having an effect on the other.
The structural problem with the fuel tanks/system is a valid point but there are ways and means to overcome this (the viability of which will be a subject of a close review prior to any decision on a relaunch).
Both Air France and BA face the same problem here, plus Air France will have to change its tyre spec and fit the deflectors BA fitted years ago.
As I have posted before, BA make an operating profit with the aircraft, it is their flagship (God knows they need one
)and the lead aircraft is 26, not 30 years old with around 23,000 hours out of a currently projected 40,000. (How many times do I have to post that hours and cycles count, years DON'T).
It would be interesting to transport all the Concorde bashers back 45 years to the time when another high profile, extemely luxurious, aircraft kept falling out of the sky.
No, not the Comet, but the Stratocruiser which had many incidents, accidents and fatalities due to runaway engines, hollow bladed props and nightmare engineering intracacies which make Concorde look like an easy fix.
As the flagship for Pan American, Northwest Orient, United and BOAC, every effort was made to keep the aircraft flying.
Indeed advertising of its beds, lounge and roominess saw intensification after each incident and the aircraft, whilst high profile in the public mind (in the UK, the aircraft of choice for Royal trips was a Stratocruiser - always BOAC's "Canopus"), was never seriously "hammered" in the press.
No doubt, as a Boeing product, it would garner support from today's Concorde bashers