OP's latest response:

"Yes there is no direct seat in front however the seat does cut into the “leg room” as you can see in the picture...my husband had to use his pillow to cover his knee the entire 12 hour journey...you can not call this extra legroom"

There is a difference between extra legroom and unlimited legroom. The bulkhead armrest has to be bigger to store the table, unless you make 39HK even narrower, the <10% of "standard legroom" by width is unavoidable. I suspect the 9-abreast 77W also has similar situation? Ignoring the other >90% width of extra legroom, to me it's purely nitpicking.

The aisle alignment though, as it's also narrower, that knee pillow is much more needed to avoid other passengers or the trolleys accidentally bumping into him isn't it?

She seems to say the pillow is to protect the legs from the seat, not aisle traffic.

Flew the new configuration on CX163 on Sunday and it was rather pleasant. A minor caveat, the seat next to me was empty. But the seat was more comfortable than the previous version, when I flew CX138, and I also had a spare seat next to me then. The IFE screen and system upgrade is a welcomed feature. My only criticism is that the seats appear very flimsy, and when people move in and out of their seats, they shift considerably more than the previous version.

Not a terrific surprise, a newly-holstered seat with no neighbour contesting your shoulder space may indeed be more comfortable with an aging seat with no neighbour.

Hmm. How long will the new seats stay comfortable (without neighbour)?

Few days ago, I flied 10seats Y for the very first time from FRA to HKG (11.5 hours day flight).
Y was completely full but I found it tolerant, mostly due to my exit seat 59C.
The new seat and monitor were both great.
The major issues were longer queue for lavatory and less storage space(more people sharing same bins)

When passengers holding OW elite status, who can pre-select exit seats free and priority boarding to place their hand-carry, this new 10seats is fine.

Unbearable
 

I finally ended up in one of these in a flight from Manila last week. Unbelievably awful. I generally chose a bulkhead seat because I like the space in front of me. But the bulkhead seats have the tray table in the armrest, making the arm-rest solid (so no room for ones thighs to ooze under the armrest) and the controls for the screen were set inside the thick armrest, at an angle which further poked out into my legs.

I'm not a Chinese tiny person, but I'm by no means as big as many (UK size 14 ladies clothes if that means anything) and by the time I got off this plane I had marks on both legs where the seat had dug into me on both sides.

I cannot believe they think this is sensible configuration. It was utterly horrendous. For a 1.5 hour flight - horrendous. For an overnight flight - people will die of blood clots.

I noticed that CX now flies the high density 777 on YYZ-HKG. Before the change, I chose CX over AC because it was a better ride in economy. Now it really comes down to price again since both products are arguably similar. I hope Hong Kong Airlines would fly their new A350 here soon.

then fact that AC could sustain a daily flight when CX provided a vastly superior product at competitive prices is what justifies CX's decision, why give comfort when your customer prefers being squeezed and does not reward you.

Or it proves the market is inefficient, at least on the Canadian side.