/ Colonialism on Everest

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tyler 23 Sep 2019

I see the proposed rules for how Everest should be managed in future (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/everest-the-proposed-new-rules) includes the following:

To discourage budget tour companies, tour operators should charge a minimum of $35,000 per client (including the $11,000 permit fee).

Have I got this right? More tourists have been getting themselves killed on Everest recently (Sherpas have been dying on there for years but, well, you know), because they lack the self control to turn back or learn the required skills, the proposal is to turn one of Nepal's few assets into a closed shop for western guiding companies? This rule prevents the nascent local guiding companies competing on price which was their main route in to this lucrative market. I presume the locals will still be allowed to be employed to do the risk stuff as long as the profits are made by foreign companies. 

8
kevin stephens 23 Sep 2019
In reply to Tyler:

Isn't it more due under-funded organisations not providing sufficient resources in manpower and equipment (oxygen etc) contributing to increase in fatalities?

1
Tyler 23 Sep 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

People paying less are getting an inferior service, yes, but they have that choice and can do their own due diligence. This aren't frail pensioners being scammed but people with the means to spend £££ on a holiday so if they want to go with cheaper companies that's up to them. Preventing locals competing is just a way for existing companies to maintain a closed shop and exclude locals.  

Simon Caldwell 23 Sep 2019
In reply to Tyler:

I'd have thought that the more you pay for the trip, the more reluctant you're likely to be to turn back (particularly when your judgement is impaired due to the altitude). But what do I know...

Post edited at 10:59
DancingOnRock 23 Sep 2019
In reply to Tyler:

That’s only one recommendation from a 59 page report. 

Have you read the rest of the report?

Other recommendations being implemented are guiding qualifications and requirements of climbers to have experience of other 6000m ascents. 

I think raising the cost of anything is a very effective blunt tool for reducing demand and hence deal with overcrowding. On its own it doesn’t solve the issue of bad guides or inexperienced climbers, but that is covered in the other recommendations. 

Tyler 23 Sep 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I've not read the whole doc but I am aware that other things are proposed. This was the only one I felt compelled to discuss.

> I think raising the cost of anything is a very effective blunt tool for reducing demand and hence deal with overcrowding. 

In this particular case it is also an effective way of reducing low cost competition.

Post edited at 11:38
Damo 23 Sep 2019
In reply to Tyler:

>  This rule prevents the nascent local guiding companies competing on price

No, it really doesn't. What 'western' guiding companies are left guiding that route charge USD$50-$110,000 because they offer a lot more service. That leaves plenty of space ($35K-65K) for local companies to operate in.

It forces local companies cutting costs too far to provide better service, as they longer have the excuse that the clients wouldn't pay enough for them to provide suitable support, and they no longer have an excuse not to pay their staff properly (or at all).

There'll still be dodgy operators and stupid clients, but each of them will have less of an excuse when things go wrong.

Tyler 23 Sep 2019
In reply to Damo:

> No it really doesn't. What 'western' guiding companies are left guiding that route charge USD$50-$110,000 because they offer a lot more service. That leaves plenty of space ($35K-65K) for local companies to operate in.

Happy to take your word on this. So minimum price for a western company is already $65k? Yikes!

Post edited at 11:42
DancingOnRock 23 Sep 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I've not read the whole doc but I am aware that other things are proposed. This was the only one I felt compelled to discuss.

> > I think raising the cost of anything is a very effective blunt tool for reducing demand and hence deal with overcrowding. 

> In this particular case it is also an effective way of reducing low cost competition.

Not really. If everyone has to charge £40k it removes the need to be competitive on price and so you then have to be competitive in the service you offer.

druridge 24 Sep 2019
In reply to Tyler:

Does that mean that only the self obsessed, indulgent rich are to have the chance to die?  

No mention of a carbon neutral accent?

Flyskam doesnt seem to apply.........

kevin stephens 24 Sep 2019
In reply to druridge:

> Does that mean that only the self obsessed, indulgent rich are to have the chance to die?  

Surely those are the only ones who want to climb Everest these days?


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.