Reasons of when dishonourable action occurred by NEAT, described in order of when the actions occurred, are provided below. Paramount to the dissatisfaction is that the trek didn’t follow the agreed schedule, had incompetent trek guidance, only one of the four trekkers made Mera Peak summit, and the group was split into two groups, leaving one group without a guide – and only a porter.
The following discussion, for the benefit of readers is kept short, with little elaboration. Importantly, this company was recommended to me in Australia, and the trek was approx 12 months in the negotiation stage with the company. A deliberate decision was made to go directly to the local Nepal company, so as to ensure the tourist dollars spent on the trek fee went directly to those in Nepal.
1. No water purification tablets: We met with the guide. We said we have water purification tablets. The guide said he would provide water purification liquid in drop (liquid) form that were better. The guide’s intent to provide this was very clear. We subsequently left our tablets behind. The guide later said that no water purification would be provided.
2. NEAT guide didn’t follow agreed schedule, and didn’t consult efficiently with the group on his proposed changes: The schedule was agreed in writing before departure. Early in the trek, the guide altered the agreed schedule saying he was the expert, and his amendments would give us the best chance of summiting. The group, trusting expert judgement, while raising concerns, did not make many major objections. However, the major concern raised by the group was that all research indicated that those who rush the summit have least chance of making the summit. Clearly the group didn’t want to create disharmony in the group by disagreeing with the guide, and trusted the guide’s judgement. However the result was that 3 of the 4 trekkers in the group did not summit. The agreed itinerary below is compared with the guide’s amended itinerary. The agreed itinerary was fully researched and agreed but the expert guide ignored it. Clearly the guide shortened the agreed itinerary in a way to shorten the trip and save money for the company on days that were subsequently not used. Therefore the itinerary was changed, despite discussions and open communications with the trekkers each morning.
Days: Agreed Itinerary: Guide’s amended itinerary
01: Lukla - Chutok or Puiya Lukla - Chutok or Puiya
02: Chutok or Puiya - Pangkongma Chutok or Puiya - Pangkongma
03: Pangkongma - Nashing Dingma Pangkongma - Nashing Dingma
04: Nashing Dingma - Chalem Kharka Nashing Dingma - Chalem Kharka
05: Chalem Kharka - Danda Kharka Chalem Kharka - Danda Kharka
06: Rest day Rest day
07: Danda Kharka - Panch Pokhri
NOT DONE
08: Panch Pokhri - Kothe
Panch Pokhri - Kothe
09: Kothe - Thangnang. Kothe - Thangnang
10: Rest day acclimatization
Rest day acclimatization
11: Trek to Khare Trek to Khare
12: Trek to Mera B.C. NOT DONE
13: Rest day acclimatization.
NOT DONE
14: Mera BC to High Camp
Day NOT DONE: KHARE to High Camp
Day
15: Summit Trek to Khare NOT DONE: No one summited
16: Back up summit day if first not successful, or rest day NOT DONE: No back up summit allowed for by NEAT
17: Trek to Kothe Trek to Kothe
18: Trek to Chhetra la Trek to Chhetra la
19: Trek to Lukla Trek to Lukla
3. Insufficient acclimatisation days despite agreement: See the insufficient acclimatisation days in above schedule.
4. Insufficient training: See the insufficient training days in above schedule.
5. Guide drunk on one day: The guide was drinking alcohol with other porters on breakfast of a particularly demanding days walk.
6. 3 of the 4 in the group did not summit: Admittedly there can be many reasons for lack of summit. However, the major concern raised by the group was that all research indicated that those who rush the summit have the least chance of making the summit.
7. The trekking group, who intended to holiday and trek together, did not trek together: Surely a sign of a successful trek is to keep the group fit and healthy, but also to keep the group together. However, because of the guides amended schedule the group was forced to separate.
8. Unintelligent acclimatisation trek: A trek from 4000 metres to 5200 at Thangnang was undertaken in three hours. The guide rushed us up and down. We then attempted to summit two days later. Clearly, from 4000 metres to 5200 and then a summit attempt without sufficient rest days was more than the body can take, but the guides didn’t see it, despite other rest days being in the schedule – which could have been used but were not.
9. Given to a mountain Sherpa known not to have summited four times: This (that the Sherpa consistently did not summit) was independently confirmed through two separate sources who were Nepalese guides or porters. The lack of summit can occur for many reasons. However, it appears strange that a treking company would entrust your summit to a guide who has not recently summited.
10. NEAT mountain Sherpa not summiting, and needing to be led down the hill from approx 6000m: The mountain Sherpa claimed mountain sickness, and took the second position on the rope and was lead down the mountain to high camp by the trekker, while the Sherpa himself was sick, jeopardising the safety of the trekker. It is important to keep all people safe, including the Sherpa, yet it is strange that a mountain Sherpa with a dodgy record of summiting was entrusted to the guidance of the trekker.
11. Back up summit promised but not delivered: When asked to comply with the agreed schedule for a back up summit, the excuse was that the back up summit had not been appropriately planned. Appears strange when back up summit was clearly part of the schedule.
12. (Eventually the back up summit was organised after drawn out negotiation and the following reflects some of that).
13. Remaining trekker, who was doing the back up summit, was left with a porter as a guide from Khare to Lukla: When the group was split into two groups, one went down the mountain, and the other summited. The one summiting was left with a porter – and no guide.
14. Mountain Sherpa claimed he had only been paid for two days by NEAT: This would explain why he didn’t summit and didn’t immediately offer a back up summit. NEAT had agreement with him for two days – or so he claimed.