
Oman Air reports record surge in passenger numbers
Of the total passengers carried, 58% were inbound travelers arriving directly in the Sultanate of Oman—highlighting the growing appeal of the country as a travel destination.
Mike Rutter, Chief Commercial Officer at Oman Air, attributed the milestone to the airline's strategic focus on route optimization and targeted marketing initiatives. He noted that this approach not only improves financial performance but also supports the sustainable expansion of the airline's network.
Rutter affirmed that Oman Air remains committed to simplifying and enriching the travel experience for visitors, reinforcing its role as a key enabler of the Sultanate's tourism growth.
As part of its expansion strategy, Oman Air is investing in both fleet modernization and route development. Recent developments include the launch of direct flights to Amsterdam, opening new access to the European market, and the resumption of twice-daily flights to London starting October.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Observer
21 hours ago
- Observer
Oman a strategic choice for green iron: Meranti
MUSCAT, JULY 29 Singapore-headquartered low-carbon steel manufacturer Meranti Green Steel (MGS) is firming up plans to establish a Hot Briquetted Iron (HBI) facility at the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Duqm on Oman's southeast coast. Phase 1 of the project targets a production capacity of 2.5 million tonnes per year of HBI, around 60 per cent of which will be shipped as feedstock for Meranti's proposed green steel plant planned at Rayong in Thailand. The latter project, slated for commissioning in 2028, will produce 2.5 million tonnes per year of hot-rolled steel earmarked for industrial consumers of green steel across Southeast Asia. The remaining 40 per cent of HBI from the Oman project is proposed to be supplied to Meranti's offtake partners distributed around the globe. In a post on Monday, July 29, 2025, Meranti described the Oman project as a 'strategic pillar of its integrated value chain.' It also outlined several reasons for selecting Oman—and Duqm in particular—as the site for its HBI production facility. Chief among these factors, it stated, is access to competitive energy: 'Oman offers reliable, cost-competitive natural gas and a rapidly developing green hydrogen ecosystem. This makes it an ideal location for producing direct reduced iron (DRI) at scale.' Equally significant, Meranti noted, are Duqm's infrastructure and export readiness. 'The Duqm Special Economic Zone provides industrial land, deep-water port access, and efficient permitting frameworks. This supports fast-track development and efficient global distribution.' Additionally, Oman's location enables efficient supply to Meranti's steel plant in Thailand, as well as to European offtakers seeking low-emission hot briquetted iron (HBI). Shipping HBI from Oman improves logistics and lowers emissions compared to traditional supply routes, the company stressed. Earlier this month, Meranti revealed that it had received tentative commitments from the Omani government for the supply of natural gas for the HBI project in Duqm. 'With gas secured and green hydrogen partnerships advancing, Oman is now fully positioned to become a critical enabler of our mission to decarbonize iron and steelmaking,' the company stated in its most recent post. 'We are working closely with Omani authorities and our raw material partner, who are committed to sustainable industrial growth. Their support is foundational to our success,' the company added. A relatively recent entrant into the steel sector in Southeast Asia, Meranti aims to leverage the latest advancements in steelmaking and digital technologies to maintain a competitive edge. A key pillar of this strategy involves establishing geographically decoupled Hot Briquetted Iron (HBI) supply chains, sourcing from highly competitive regions such as Oman and Western Australia. This approach enables Meranti to site HBI plants in locations with strong access to competitively priced natural gas and emerging green or blue hydrogen, while situating steel production facilities closer to end-user markets.


Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Scramble for critical minerals
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare-earth metals (for permanent magnets), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. But, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the United States risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them. As it stands, China is leading the pack, having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80 per cent of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities. For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China. Since then, US President Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. And he has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The European Union, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). From the Scramble for Africa in the nineteenth century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the twentieth century, such resource grabs are hardly new. They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies – and, nowadays, China. In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: industrialised economies get the resources they desire, and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. But, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts. A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might – all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources like copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the nineteenth century. This, together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies, meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted. But even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts. Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbours such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo – and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US, in exchange for security guarantees. But the resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play. Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15 per cent stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting – not just mining – occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities. Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour-rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign governments to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries with which they do business. Ultimately, however, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with efforts to strengthen institutions. @Project Syndicate, 2025


Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
US and EU avert trade war with 15% tariff deal
TURNBERRY, Scotland: The US struck a framework trade agreement with the European Union on Sunday, imposing a 15% import tariff on most EU goods - half the threatened rate - and averting a bigger trade war between the two allies that account for almost a third of global trade. US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal at Trump's luxury golf course in western Scotland after an hour-long meeting that pushed the hard-fought deal over the line, following months of negotiations. "I think this is the biggest deal ever made," Trump told reporters, lauding EU plans to invest some $600 billion in the United States and dramatically increase its purchases of US energy and military equipment. Trump said the deal, which tops a $550 billion deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of US exporters. Von der Leyen, describing Trump as a tough negotiator, said the 15% tariff applied "across the board", later telling reporters it was "the best we could get." "We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability," she said. The agreement mirrors key parts of the framework accord reached by the US with Japan, but like that deal, it leaves many questions open, including tariff rates on spirits, a highly charged topic for many on both sides of the Atlantic. The deal, which Trump said calls for $750 billion of EU purchases of U.S. energy in coming years and "hundreds of billions of dollars" of arms purchases, likely spells good news for a host of EU companies, including Airbus, Mercedes-Benz and Novo Nordisk, if all the details hold. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. German carmakers, VW, Mercedes and BMW were some of the hardest hit by the 27.5% US tariff on car and parts imports now in place. The baseline 15% tariff will still be seen by many in Europe as too high, compared with Europe's initial hopes to secure a zero-for-zero tariff deal. Bernd Lange, the German Social Democrat who heads the European Parliament's trade committee, said the tariffs were imbalanced and the hefty EU investment earmarked for the US would likely come at the bloc's own expense. Trump retains the ability to increase the tariffs in the future if European countries do not live up to their investment commitments, a senior US administration official told reporters on Sunday evening. The euro rose around 0.2% against the dollar, sterling and yen within an hour of the deal's being announced. — Reuters