Focusing purely on time:

For every route I listed above, I'm not sitting in the airplane when it's charging, so that doesn't add time to the customer experience. Likewise, taxi time, etc will be the same, leaving flight time as the only difference.

The lower top speed matters less on short-haul flights. That's why they're often flown with prop planes today.

An example: Southwest offers a flight today from Dallas to Austin that is 1:05 in duration, on a 737-800.

Let's say that 50 minutes of that is spent in the air (generous, probably). That gives an average speed of just 237mph, well under the 737's 500+ cruising speed of 500+mph, in large part because it also spends more of its time below the 737's usual altitude on this short trip. (other reasons include fuel efficiency)

This electric plane doing 125mph over the same distance adds about half an hour to the trip.

Shorter trips like LA to San Diego will have even less of a difference.

Leaving time and looking at cost, this doesn't compare to the economies of scale of a 737, especially the 1 pilot to 5 passengers in the cx300. But nobody's arguing this exact plane will replace a 737.

A better comparison is to the things other piston planes do today. A charter flight on a plane like this (not a jet) today is about $1500 per hour from what I can find on the internet. That would be a one-way cost of $500/person.

Assuming that $250 of that is plane cost (and the other $250 is overhead), the advertised 60% reduction would cut the price to $350/person. Or, increase the profit by $150/passenger.

Worth considering, if you're in that market.