Originally Posted by
BadoRas
I cannot fathom why the OP would not have done his homework as to what the miles cost might be. To me, that is the logical first step. He was certainly aware of the miles he needed to purchase for his future award flight. Why not this one?
Who knows? But importantly the agent had no idea either. The agent didn't know whether OP had the first clue about the complexities of miles upgrades. Maybe the flight was a gift, a work-paid flight, maybe OP had no idea how much was paid or whether it was flex plus, etc. Maybe OP had no idea where to look online (which actually seems to be the case). Maybe OP just walked up thinking "Let's ask if it's possible before we start looking at price".
People replying seem to be confusing the question at hand ("was the agent in error giving an upgrade without confirming price and then refusing to inform whether a fee was paid/what price was paid?") with another: "could OP have avoided this outcome?" That second question plays no part in the first as the agent should have ZERO expectations of the OP having done research. As it is the agent executed a transaction unrequested. It is, by definition, an unrequested transaction because one party was not informed of half of the transaction's details. The transaction REQUIRES the agreement of price for goods/service where the seller knows these. The price wasn't agreed, and a) the agent transacted before the buyer could consent and b) then refused to inform the buyer of price. This sort of activity is legally frowned on e.g. when car-repairs are executed without specific agreement on cost. It's not a stretch to say that OP wouldn't find the price reasonable evidenced by two arguments a) previous upgrade costs and b) saving miles for a specific goal.
To me, the answer is obvious. The OP was actually wanting an op-up. He didn't want any of his pre-allocated miles involved, but didn't articulate that. The operator's unusual response played into his hope that he HAD just received an op-up. At that point he should have sought clarification of how the upgrade was processed. He didn't.
I think asking how much the transaction cost qualifies as seeking clarification. The agent didn't provide any indication that the transaction cost miles despite being asked explicitly. I guess OP could have asked a second time, but having sought clarification and received an answer that hinted at no cost involved, why should he/she? What if OP did so and got "Shhhh" as a reply? The agent was acting inappropriately, OP has no obligation to compensate for an odd agent by seeking out further clarification. Could have, sure; should have, no. As to hopes for an op-up, I have no idea, that would be guessing.
Why would he have enquired about a miles upgrade if he didn't intend spending any of the miles he had purchased for another purpose?
I think OP's expectation was to make a decision based on cost. OP tried to find out cost, failed using the app, and went to the desk with the intent to enquire firstly if an upgrade was available and then agree to the transaction if and only if the cost was acceptable (i.e. didn't spend the miles he/she was saving for a trip) - that's not unusual. Imagine this happened every time you enquired about availability of something: are there any tickets for the theatre? Done, not going to tell you the cost but you're in the front row. Any seats on this evening's flight? Done, you're on board, how much? Can't tell you that... what do you mean you can't pay the mortgage now?
What actually occurred is OP got an upgrade gratis and had miles taken unauthorised from his account. I think it would be pointless to take that line, but the airline really screwed up here. Let's remember this isn't trinkets. This was an unauthorised transaction for miles that cost $2000. The flippant nature of the agent is poor in this situation. His actual (internal) response to realising that the customer had no idea they'd just unwittingly spent $2000, and perhaps wouldn't have wanted to, should have been "Fuuuuuuck", not a playful smile and a cryptic answer.