In the Terms and Conditions of many, if not most, airline frequent flyer programs are provisions stating that miles are not transferrable, including on death, divorce, or by law. Such seemingly cold-hearted provisions may actually be attempts to minimize costs of becoming embroiled in probate cases [court actions to distribute the property of a decedent].

There is also a standard clause giving the carrier the right to change the terms and conditions without notice.

To the extent such changes may be "contracts of adhesion," it might be theoretically possible to legally challenge some extreme airline actions, as I understand occurred with AA several years ago concerning expiring miles. However, using the legal system is usually more expensive than the value of most account balances.

On the bright side, if you find out through this website or an anonymous inquiry that the carrier is routinely waiving such provisions as a matter of compassion and good customer relations, it would seem to make sense to go ahead and get them transferred to the survivor's name, to maximize redemption options.

On the other hand, some carriers are notorious in their refusal to do so -- particularly those with limited competition such as QF -- in which case the wiser course may be for the survivor to redeem them.

As for the ethics of doing so, that would be an individual decision that surely should balance the morality of "unjust enrichment" by the carrier and the carrier's likely intent or purpose in imposing the condition. What if the QF miles were purchased by Inside Flyer subscriptions? Is such a forfeiture "fair," or within the contemplation of the parties? [I can certainly understand the argument that it is perfectly fair. You knew or should have known what bargain you were entering into.] However, even the Catholic Church believes that it can sometimes be proper to marry a poor elderly couple secretly, without reporting it to the government, if doing so would result in cutting off social security benefits. Such a decision is based on the morality of how a just society should honor and treat its poor elderly.

I will not presume to judge the survivors, even though some may correctly and hypertechnically call such use by a survivor "stealing." It would make an interesting case before the U.S. Naval Academy Honor Board.