Retail Comes Close To $1 Billion For Qatar Airways In Historic Year
Hamad Airport has just been expanded with more shops added.
The strongest results in the history of Qatar Airways Group were released on Monday, with retail subsidiary Qatar Duty Free (QDF) making a strong contribution. The airline, whose home base is Hamad International Airport in Doha, produced a record-breaking profit of QAR7.85 billion ($2.15bn), soaring by 28% from $1.7 billion a year earlier.
Revenue grew by only 6.3% to QAR85.64 billion ($23.5 billion) for the 12 months ending March 31, 2025, illustrating how the airline's partnership strategy, carefully planned route development, in-flight service, and agility in the face of an unstable political and economic environment have paid off.
Last week, the airline also agreed to a huge order of Boeing jets (up to 210) during Donald Trump's visit to Qatar, boosting the beleaguered aircraft manufacturer beset by safety and production issues.
Meanwhile, the 100% holding, QDF Company, which operates the entire over-430,000 square feet retail offer at Hamad International, increased its share of the airline's revenue. In the 12 months to March, QDF's sales across more than 200 retail and food and beverage (F&B) outlets grew by 12% year-over-year, processing over 15 million individual transactions in the period.
The 12% figure is less than the 18% reported earlier this year directly by QDF for calendar 2024, suggesting that there has been a softening of sales in the first quarter of 2025, which is the retailer's 25th anniversary year.
Helping QDF last year were record-breaking passenger numbers at the Qatar Airways hub. In 2024, traffic reached 52.7 million, up by 15% to keep it in the top tier of ACI World's ranking for busiest international airports at #10. The airport slipped down a place from the year before as Hong Kong International returned to the Top 10 (at #9) after a very delayed revival due to post-Covid caution, but finally went into overdrive last year (up 34%).
For FY25, Qatar Airways broke out its duty-free goods and beverages revenue, which reached QAR3.56 billion ($977.2 million). All of it is likely to be derived from QDF, but the retailer did not confirm this at the time of writing.
This year, there is an extra level of activity in terms of stores opening in the newly inaugurated concourses D and E, adding to A, B and C, plus high-profile 25th anniversary activity, which included two weekends in May when there was 25% off on almost everything.
Revenue is therefore expected to soar and Thabet Musleh, Qatar Airways' chief retail and hospitality officer told me that this year he would be upping the experience level at Doha's Hamad Airport 'and leading with concepts that no other airports have deployed,' an example being the existing Dior Luxury Beauty Retreat, the world's largest and the first in an airport. (A detailed interview with Mr. Musleh will appear soon.)
Interior of the luxurious double-height Dior Spa at Hamad International Airport.
Qatar Airways Group CEO, Engr. Badr Mohammed Al-Meer has described QDF 'as the heartbeat of our passenger-focused operations', rare praise from an airline head, most of whom barely acknowledge their retail business (if they have one). It underlines the crucial role that the carrier believes that shopping and F&B plays in its overall operation.
QDF's vision will continue with what it calls 'ground-breaking' projects, including major campaigns. These have included igniting the thrill of Formula 1 (the airline is a partner), featuring an airport F1 car display, racing simulators, and race-themed dining experiences; big luxury-label activations such as Chanel's Winter Tale; and the beauty-focused Yves Saint Laurent's Summer Mirage.
As part of QDF's 25th anniversary celebrations it is also launching at least 25 new retail and F&B concepts this year while parent Qatar Airways expands services to Toronto and São Paulo from June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House GOP Fears Trump-Elon Breakup Might Get In ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill's Way
House Republicans are hoping the public breakup between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk does not last very long for the sake of the 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill. Thursday's news cycle was dominated by the clash between the President and the world's richest man and their petty attacks on each other — which included mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, impeachment, black-eye makeup, as well as a back and forth over the contents of the reconciliation package the House recently passed. The showdown between the two appears to have House Republicans worried that more unwanted attention — pointing to the poison pills in the House package — would be on the reconciliation bill they are calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As we've been reporting for some time, House Republicans have attempted to disguise their sweeping cuts to the social safety net by referring to the changes as 'reforms' like enacting work requirements for Medicaid, among other things. 'I just hope it resolves quickly, for the sake of the country,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told CNBC Friday morning. Other House Republicans are also preaching deescalation for the sake of the bill they spent weeks fighting with each other over. 'Both of them have paid a tremendous price personally for this country, and I think at the end of the day, they're both going to put the country first,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) said, according to Politico. 'And them working together is certainly far more better for the country.' Meanwhile, Department of Government Efficiency caucus Chair Aaron Bean (R-FL) said Friday he was 'shocked and dismayed' to see his 'two friends fighting,' adding that he remains optimistic that the former allies can work it out. 'I believe there's a Diet Coke in their future, that they can settle it and cooler heads will prevail,' Bean said. 'We need them together. We need to be united, and we're stronger together. So I'm very optimistic that there will be a happy ending very soon.' — Emine Yücel A look into Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-SC) dirty stalling tactics that helped her ultimately block Democrats on the House Oversight Committee from subpoenaing Elon Musk this week — even though not enough Republicans were initially present to override the effort. Some thoughts on the creator of Succession's new, satirical movie Mountainhead, and what it tells us about our current cultural moment, as the Fox News echo chamber, social media and AI merge to create a society in which reality is elusive. Let's dig in. Washington was consumed with drama related to Elon Musk on Thursday afternoon as the megabillionaire who spearheaded the so-called Department of Government Efficiency launched into a public social media spat with President Trump. But turmoil surrounding the President's former ally actually started earlier that morning when tensions over Musk essentially caused the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to short circuit and grind to a halt. This bizarre scene was a perfect distillation of how Congress is (or depending on your view, isn't) working in the second Trump era, with MAGA partisans going to cartoonish lengths to protect the president and his allies from scrutiny. The episode took place in a hearing that was nominally about the use of artificial intelligence. In his opening remarks, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) noted how Musk, whose DOGE minions have used AI to siphon up federal data and slash government programs, has changed that conversation. 'Optimizing the federal government's use of technology has long been a bipartisan priority of this committee,' Lynch said. 'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides.' Following those remarks, Lynch moved to subpoena Musk to appear before the committee. His motion was quickly seconded. After last year's election, Republicans have a majority in the House and its committees. But at the time of Lynch's motion, one Democratic member said only six of the 25 Republicans on Oversight were present. These absences theoretically meant the Democrats had a temporary majority needed to issue the subpoena. However, this effort to have the committee dedicated to oversight provide some actual oversight of Musk was quickly derailed. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who was serving as chairwoman, almost immediately called to 'suspend' the proceedings. She then presided over a more than twenty minute delay as she strained the bounds of normal procedure to buy time for her colleagues to make their way to the hearing. The extended interlude was filled with surreal scenes as Democratic members attempted to question Mace and move forward with business as usual. At one point, even though Republicans were evidently outnumbered and outvoted, Mace declared that they had won a voice vote to consider a motion to table Lynch's motion. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) attempted to speak at this point and was shut down. 'I love you,' Mace said to him. 'This is not debatable.' Mace did not respond to a request for comment. At another point, as she swatted away Democrats' efforts to hold the vote, Mace seemed to wink. She also called Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) 'babe' when the congresswoman asked to do a roll call 'so we can determine if y'all really have the votes.' 'No ma'am,' Mace replied. As Democrats began to openly note that Mace's stonewalling appeared to be a fairly unprecedented effort to allow absent Republican members the time to filter in, Mace continually shut down discussion and efforts to hold a vote. One Republican member responded to an inquiry about whether they were following rules by noting that Democrats had lost the last election. That comment made the situation on Capitol Hill quite plain: After winning the election, Trump and his partisans are willing to throw out any traditional rule book. After about twenty minutes and twenty seven seconds, Mace allowed the vote to proceed. As she checked the numbers with the clerk, it was apparent the Republicans were still coming up short. Mace then allowed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had since slipped in, to vote. With those two final additions and the twenty minute-plus standstill, Republicans were able to table the effort to subpoena Musk by a vote of 21-20. In a statement to TPM, Lynch accused the GOP members of ' refusing to exercise Congressional authority on behalf of the American people to demand answers and accountability for the destruction, chaos, and cruelty Elon Musk and DOGE have unleashed on our government and on communities nationwide.' 'It is disturbing that Republicans would rather shield the richest man in the world from testifying publicly than fight for the folks who rely on VA health care, Social Security benefits, weather services, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and more vital programs and services that have been decimated by Elon Musk's chainsaw,' Lynch said, adding, 'The Oversight Committee was made for this moment, and Republicans are failing the American people by refusing to do their jobs. Just because Elon Musk has turned in his ID badge does not mean he can walk away from the monstrosity he has created and the permanent damage left in his wake.' — Hunter Walker 'I call this alternate reality, I call this place where these folks live, Bullshit Mountain,' Jon Stewart told the crowd during The Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium debate with Bill O'Reilly in 2012. 'On Bullshit Mountain,' Stewart went on, 'our problems are amplified and the solutions simplified.' Bullshit Mountain would become Stewart's enduring metaphor for Fox News in the second half of the Obama presidency. It was a convenient shorthand to explain how Fox pundits could routinely espouse conspiratorial nonsense or fixate on an obscure event with seemingly no broad implications for the American public and use it as proof positive of the country's imminent collapse. Bullshit Mountain was an acknowledgment that the two major political parties didn't merely have different opinions on how to solve the country's problems, but increasingly were living in two different realities with entirely different problems. There was also the non-subtle accusation of cynicism in the name Bullshit Mountain. Maybe the audience believed this crap, but the executives and the anchors knew it was bullshit, right? In Jesse Armstrong's breakout show, 'Succession,' he satirized a fictional version of the Murdoch empire which took us behind the scenes of Bullshit Mountain. In Armstrong's interpretation of this world, there were the serious people who understood how to play the game and accumulate power, and those who were not serious, who didn't know how to play the game, or worse, didn't know it was a game at all. In his follow-up to Succession, HBO's new made-for-TV movie Mountainhead, Armstrong seems to acknowledge that Bullshit Mountain may no longer be a place created and controlled by serious people, that the bullshit from which the mountain is made may have broken confinement and swamped us all. Bullshit Mountain may now be where we all live — our dominant reality. Centered on a foursome of ultrarich tech founders (all men) who gather at a mountain lodge for a poker game as the world falls apart after the release of the AI-powered social network they all had some role in creating, Mountainhead depicts a world where seriousness might be a detriment to world dominance. 'Nothing means anything and everything is funny,' the founder of the AI social network explains when confronted by a litany of abuses enabled by his product, including a video of a kid juggling severed feet. The technology these founders have created has effectively dissolved any sense of shared reality by allowing anyone to create and propagate alternate realities which leads to the unraveling of the global order. But more interesting than the consequences of this technology, which we are in many ways already aware of, is the way in which the founders have isolated themselves from their own reality, both intentionally and unintentionally. After about 30 mins of dialogue laced in the idiomatic gibberish of Silicon Valley … 'first principles' .. 'post-human'… 'decel' … 'p(doom)' … 'game theory' … 'chunky numbers' … you realize these characters have nothing meaningful to say to each other, whether socially or in response to the global catastrophe they helped create. While there is a tinge of the tragic in their inability to communicate emotionally with each other, there is also something powerful in the artifice of their language, which protects them from having to meaningfully take responsibility for their actions. Viewing the potential collapse of the world through their screens, a vantage point from which nothing can be known for certain, the artificiality of their language lends an artificiality to the events, regardless of whether or not they are really happening. The collapse of a country's economy gets referred to as 'de minimis,' news of the mayor of Paris's assassination becomes an example of the 'compound distillation effect of the content.' But when the four characters end up bunkered in the basement, erroneously fearing retaliation from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, it's clear that they are as susceptible to the fake reality their technology has created as any of its users. Whether you find Mountainhead successful satire may depend on your priors. However, in the wake of DOGE, Elon's takeover and remaking of Twitter and the enthusiasm with which our major AI companies are cheerleading a new cold war with China, it's hardly a work of speculative fiction. In Jon Stewart's farewell speech from the Daily Show in 2015, he claimed that the bullshitters were getting lazy and that vigilance was our best defense. But his framing assumed a continued dichotomy between the bullshitters and the bullshited. He didn't offer any advice on what to do when there's no longer a difference. — Derick Dirmaier
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Should You Invest $1,000 in XRP Today?
XRP has been a strong performer in the crypto sector since Trump won the election. The token's main use case is for cross-border payments. Ripple, the company behind XRP, has been very active this year in continuing to build out its business. 10 stocks we like better than XRP › Aside from Bitcoin, few cryptocurrencies have benefited more than XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) from President Donald Trump's election win back in November. Now the fourth-largest cryptocurrency in the world by market value, XRP has blasted more than 330% higher (as of June 5). Trump's win ushered in a new regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies, one less focused on caution and more focused on growth. The win also removed several regulatory headwinds for XRP. After experiencing such a strong run built on several strong catalysts, should you still invest $1,000 in XRP today? The big catalyst for XRP was getting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) off its back. In 2020, the SEC sued Ripple, the company behind XRP, as well as Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen and Ripple's current Chief Executive Officer Brad Garlinghouse, for selling XRP as an unregistered security back in 2013. Investors viewed the case as a big deal because it could have set a precedent for the SEC's regulatory jurisdiction over many cryptocurrencies. While Ripple appeared to get a partial victory in 2023 when a federal judge ruled that sales of XRP to retail investors did not constitute sales of unregistered securities, the SEC appealed the case. Only after Trump won the presidential election, eventually leading to the resignation of SEC Chair Gary Gensler, did the lawsuit eventually end, removing a big overhang for Ripple and XRP. With the lawsuit now in the rear view, Ripple has been able to focus on its cross-border payments business, which leverages XRP, to help businesses move money globally more efficiently. Furthermore, Ripple launched its own stablecoin, called RLUSD. XRP can also benefit from RLUSD because it serves as a bridge currency, helping people who want to transfer other currencies to RLUSD and vice versa. Ripple also paid $1.25 billion to acquire prime broker Hidden Road in one of the largest acquisitions made in the crypto industry. Management believes the move could accelerate institutional adoption. Ripple also said that Hidden Road will eventually move post-trade activity to the XRP ledger to streamline operations and reduce costs, aiming to make XRP's ledger the main blockchain network for institutional decentralized finance. Ripple could also potentially serve customers of Hidden Road seeking digital asset custody, similar to what a bank offers. Other potential catalysts include the future launch of spot price XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which actually buy and store cryptocurrencies and then sell shares based on how much they own, with the goal of tracking a cryptocurrency's price. Ripple could also go public at some point. While Garlinghouse has said the company is not interested in doing this right now, it could still happen at some point. Cryptocurrencies are hard to value because they don't generate cash flow and earnings and trade heavily on momentum and on broader sentiment about the sector. The good news is that XRP has a compelling use case in its ability to process 1,500 transactions per second, making it an ideal blockchain and token for cross-border payments. The bad news is that there are competitors that can also process lots of transactions per second. But XRP is part of a growing ecosystem within Ripple, which now has its own stablecoin and a huge prime broker, on top of the existing bank clients. This could give XRP a leg up in becoming the preferred token for institutions conducting cross-border payments. For this reason, I think XRP is worth a small, speculative investment, but I wouldn't invest too heavily in the token just yet because it's still too volatile. Consider how much $1,000 means to you financially when investing in XRP. If it's a big part of your portfolio, it's prudent to invest less. If you can invest $1,000 and not worry too much about losing it, then definitely invest because, long term, XRP could have a ton of upside. Before you buy stock in XRP, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and XRP wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Bram Berkowitz has positions in Bitcoin and XRP. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin and XRP. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Invest $1,000 in XRP Today? was originally published by The Motley Fool Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Call with China's Xi, and Trump, Musk exchange fueled barbs during 20th week in office
President Donald Trump and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk engaged in a public feud Thursday (—) less than a week after the White House held a farewell press conference for Musk highlighting his contributions spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk departed his tenure as a special government employee with DOGE May 30, but swiftly launched into criticisms of Trump's massive tax and spending package dubbed the "big, beautiful, bill." Tuesday, Musk labeled the measure a "disgusting abomination" because of reports it ramps up the federal deficit. On Thursday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that Musk opposed the bill because it eliminates an electric vehicle tax credit that benefits companies like Tesla. But Trump said that provision has always been part of the measure. "I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people," Trump said in the Oval Office in a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. "He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair." Musk immediately responded on X to Trump's statements, urging a removal of the "disgusting pork" included in the measure. He also said it was "false" that he was shown the measure "even once." The two continued to publicly spar against one another, with Musk asserting that Trump wouldn't have won the 2024 election if it weren't for his own backing. Meanwhile, Trump accused Musk of going "CRAZY" over cuts to the EV credits, and said that Musk was "wearing thin." Additionally, Trump told Fox News on Friday that "Elon's totally lost it" and was not interested in speaking over the phone with Musk, despite media reports suggesting the two would talk. Here's what also happened this week: Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz met with Trump at the White House Thursday, where the two discussed the war in Ukraine. While Merz asserted that the U.S. was in a powerful spot to bring a meaningful end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Trump offered that the world might need to "let them fight for a little while." "America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war," Merz said. Merz said that Germany was willing to help however it could, and wanted to discuss options to partner with the U.S. to bring peace. Likewise, Merz suggested that European allies exert additional pressure on Russia to end the conflict. But Trump said that he told Putin in a recent call that perhaps both countries would need to feel the consequences of fighting more acutely, claiming he told Putin "maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot." "Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy – they hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart, they don't want to be pulled," Trump said. "Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart." Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping Thursday to discuss trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal," Trump said Thursday in a Truth Social post. "The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries." Trump said the conversation focused "almost entirely" on trade, and that Xi invited the U.S. president and first lady Melania Trump to visit China. Likewise, Trump reciprocated and invited Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, to visit the U.S. The call comes nearly a week after Trump condemned China May 30 for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China hashed out in May. And on Wednesday, Trump said Xi was "extremely hard to make a deal with" in a Truth Social post. The negotiations from May prompted both countries to agree that the U.S. would lower its tariffs against Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China would reduce its tariffs against U.S. imports from 125% to 10%.
