The point is that if every single airline was flying over the region, maybe MH would have a valid excuse. But the fact that one or two others decided not to, MH should perhaps have turned their attention to those and asked the question 'why?'. Why are these airlines taking a different route to everyone else? Do they know something we don't?
Who knows, MH may have done just that. BA or AF might have said 'just because we are being cautious', or maybe they gave no valid reason. This may need to be answered by MH if they are to prove they were not negligent.
That 37 other airlines were flying there may mean all 37 airlines were negligent, not that all 37 were in the right. It is just MH that needs to answer because they are the ones faced with the liability because they were shot down.
The Montreal Convention is clear. MH must prove it was not negligent. Otherwise it is strictly liable. SQ, AI, LH all would be in the same position if it had been one of their aircraft.
Again, I say this... everyone so convinced that MH is NOT liable, you rob the families of an avenue of compensation.
The authorities also said the Syria flight path was safe that MH4 took two days after the accident. This time however MH appears to be the only intercontinental flight using that route. So that might shed some insight onto MH's risk assessment. It somewhat looks like they have none over and above what they want to accept.
Authorities authorise all sorts of things. There can be a 100km/H speed limit, but if it is pouring rain, even though they have authorised 100, individual drivers will make their own assessment and go slower if necessary. People are allowed to ride motorcycles without full leathers. But some rider go further and choose to enhance their safety.
There is nothing restricting MH (or any other airline) from erring on the side of caution and increasing safety margins.
