In reply to asdf123:
> .... anyone knows how trustworthy they are?
That's a very broad question and involves too many aspects and subjectivities to answer easily, accurately or fairly.
Dan M saved the life of a friend of mine some years ago, on Everest, so I hesitate to criticise his company, but there's a fair consensus that quite a few people die on their trips. On the other hand, they run quite a few trips, and have been running for a while, and high altitude mountaineering is very dangerous, so how accurate or meaningful that view is I don't know.
What I would say, and this is not necessarily aimed only at Summitclimb, is that if you are going for their cheap options, only do so if you are strong, experienced and really know what is involved - otherwise you're just wasting whatever money it costs. While this has often been the case for most people - ie. more support increases your chances of summiting safely - it is now even more so, as many trips are basically run by Sherpas, and they are keen to just hustle everyone up as quickly as possible on oxygen. So if you join an 8000er trip on the budget option, hoping to climb 'unsupported' (meaningless term in this context) and not use bottled O2, you will probably find it impossible to mesh your personal schedule with that of those using the maximum support - O2, personal Sherpa etc.
If by 'trustworthy' you mean do they have a long record of operating with considerable success, will they not steal your money, not rip you off, then yes, they are 'trustworthy'. But mountains are not.
