Nothing has happened really. Apart from AC reconsidering their 737-9 decision by low profile removing their slots from the 737-9 assembly line-up.
Since the -8 and -9 come off the same assembly line and the total number of orders is unchanged, you are really going out of your way to bash the -9.
Which shouldn't come as unexpected when Boeing themselves was forced to redo the aircraft to keep United on board.
"Redoing the aircraft" is what we keep seeing you suggest Airbus do to the A321 on the fly-paper proposals you keep posting. Making a small stretch, improving the landing gear and doing some aerodynamic recontouring is a lot cheaper than the two sets of wings you keep suggesting Airbus do. Kind of nice you can keep a great customer like UA happy with a modest spend, isn't it?
Interestingly, the number of MAX 9 in the revised order, is pretty similar to the current number of A321 in the mainline fleet (15 A321 vs 12 MAX 9). And the number of MAX 8, resembles the number of A320 (42 A320 vs 49 MAX 8). Total 8+9 = 61 aircraft. Total 320+321 = 57 aircraft. So very modest growth of 4 aircraft in this category of aircraft, and a mix very similar to the current A32x mix (minus the A319, which the C-series replaces). So there really IS nothing to see here folks. As for the MAX 10... the range is less than the 9, so that may play into AC's calculations. Clearly they are enamoured with the extra capability of the MAX over the current Airbus fleet, and the 10 may not be as good a fit for AC as some think it is, the modest extra capacity of two rows 12 seats) may not be worth the loss of route flexibility that the lost range will incur (300 n.m. according to Boeing). All in all this seems like a logical and conservative move by Air Canada to modernize, and modestly grow, the narrowbody fleet.
Yep, all this, and somehow being able to deal without containers is a pretty remarkable thing, isn't it?