I for one, never understand why the Company doesn't seek the advice of their foreign domiciled pilots with every large international decision they make. We all know that line pilots make excellent businessmen and advisors on multi-billion dollar deals - after all that's why they're pilots.

He did not suggest talking to pilots.

"It really is a shame that someone that graduates from Harvard, Yale, or any other law school would be so shamefully dedicated to ignoring the input from those that are in China on a very regular basis."

I know such people. None are pilots. The point is that there is a body of knowledge from those working with "Chinese Partners". Some are managers, some are engineers. All tell the same story, and it points back to American senior managers (marketing and CEOs more than lawyers) selling the company IP for short term gain. In one case that I have second hand knowledge of it was nuclear technology.

So yea, some Chinese "partner" having rights to a sort facility? Only a fool or an MBA would doubt it.

............

Oil companies in the Middle East in the 1950s and 1960s.

Spent millions on building infrastructure....and then many of those oil fields and refineries were "nationalized".

Excellent question/observation --- I can see how Singapore would be a great "middle solution" between China and the PI.

Venezuela:

Venezuela to nationalize U.S. firm's oil rigs | Reuters

In context
 

Yes. Uncle's law firm had an office in Shanghai for a couple decades. When it became impossible to get documents across town they decided to have offices on opposite sides of the city. Through a very public, celebrated and exemplary course of cooperation and coordination over a few years, the firm was chosen to be the initial business in an area the Chinese were pushing as their showcase rennovation of an older part of the city, as well as the anchor in the new financial business area. Deals were brokered for use of local architectural firms, construction, materials, outfitting, electronics and even local employment.
After four years the simultaneous ribbon cutting ceremonies were at hand, hosted by Ministers of Commerce, Trade, ad nauseum. As the CEO of the firm was glad handing the dignitaries, one asked which of the buildings they would occupy. Not quite understanding the query he said they eagerly awaited immediately seeing to their clients needs come the start of the business week. The interpreter then relayed the news that it would be quite impossible as Foreign law firms were only permitted to open one new office every 18 months - a local law enacted only three months prior, by those with full knowledge of the firms' efforts and whom had been intimately involved in the projects. One of the buildings sat idle for the year and a half.

He told me this anecdote in response to me asking him a few years back what he thought of FedEx opening a domicile/hub in China. His assessment of the LOA was comical.

Well, Fred Smith is a Yale Grad.

Actually, more manufacturing is coming back to the USA. China has a labor shortage (ex. A320 Capts getting 200k a year). Multinationals are freaked out over supply-chains. As the tsumami and floods in Thailand have shown. Honda is upping production in Ohio. So there will be less goods coming from Asia. Unless Fedex and UPS change their business model they will be in trouble.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I doubt if I or anyone else at FedEx will loose even a moments sleep over your comment.

The argument you make actually helps FDX and UPS to some degree. China and India over the next decade will consume more and more. A balanced trade between the U.S. and Asia creates more efficiencies in the FDX and UPS model (ie. not empty jets coming from U.S. to Asia and full ones coming back). If you have been to China recently, there is a huge appetite for U.S. products (albeit now mostly "knock-offs"). An increase in manufacturing in the U.S. with an increase in consumer demand in Asia is good for FDX. Just my opinion. I personally think the biggest threat to profitability for FDX an UPS is political, the increasing desire to impose trade barriers by all countries.