What's so difficult for your to comprehend? Bybee made a powerful and cogent argument in dissenting from the other two justices that dismissing the DFR case on ripeness grounds would be a failure of the court to properly resolve a dispute between the two parties. Furthermore he said it was quite clear that USAPA had no intention, and had clearly stated as much, of abiding by their DFR responsibilities regarding the NIC and that sending them away with a warning would simply delay the justice that was ultimately due to the west pilots per federal law. He was spot on by all accounts and on all points. The parties are still in a state of unresolved dispute and there have been at least two (more like four federal cases: PHX-DJ, NC-Status Quo, NY-Status Quo, PHX-MOU/DFR II) clogging up the courts because the parties cannot come to an out-of-court settlement of this SLI dispute. USAPA has heeded no warnings from Wake, Bybee, Tashima, Graber, or Silver related to their DFR and the NIC. So now in the aftermath of all that Bybee can remind the other two justices that his dissenting opinion was spot on and that they should now do what they failed to do last time, namely evaluate the Company's DJ as a case ripe for adjudication and determine on the merits that Silver can resolve the unanswered DFR question definitively on Count 1 or on Count 2 with no caveats attached like last time.
History has proven Bybee to be right on those points. Perhaps he's not the kind to laugh or gloat, but he certainly wasn't wrong about USAPA not abiding by the NIC or the fact that the courts would ultimately have to decide if their stated intentions were a DFR or not.