I think you are referring to the sunk cost fallacy.
Concorde is an emotive subject, a magnificent achievement and in many ways a victim of circumstances. The oil crisis of the 70s, the British inability to sell, political chicanery. In later years it was profitable though if you look at it in LTV terms it probably wasn't.
But the value of Concorde was far more than can be expressed by the short-arms-long-pockets brigade.
For those who visit Cambridge, UK take a trip to Duxford aerospace museum and see the Concorde prototype. Notice the old guys manning the display, get talking to them. They are immensely proud of that aircraft. The ideas that built Concorde came from the Avro Arrow (cocked up by the politicians and still a sore point in Canada), TSR2 (cocked up by the politicians). When Concorde was decommissioned tens of thousands turned out to see its final flight, many of them in tears. Competition for a place on the engineering team decommissioning it was fierce. What price would you put on that?
What great jump forward in aviation tech superseded a machine that could cross the Atlantic in 2 hours 53 minutes?
I've decommissioned many IT systems and the predominant emotion has been "thank God that <<expletive deleted>> has gone"! The best of them has gone unmourned even when the rightness of the underpinning idea has been acknowledged.