The thing is, leaving aside the Skydance of it all, we're just never going back to 20-30 episode seasons again. TV just isn't there any longer. So we'd either get one show, with 10 episodes every 1-2 years, or multiple shows. And if we get multiple shows, you have to do something to distinguish them.
This is
probably going to continue to hold true for Star Trek for the foreseeable future, but there are still plenty of TV shows that make 20+ episodes a year, at least in the U.S.
Georgie & Mandy's First Marriage,
Law & Order,
Elsbeth,
The Simpsons, Family Guy,
Chicago P.D.,
Chicago Fire,
Chicago Med, and other broadcast network TV shows continue to pump out 20+ episode seasons most years. I guess not too surprising considering they still need to air shows in specific time slots year round.
It's definitely not as universal as it used to be, even if you exclude the years affected by COVID and the strikes. (For example,
Matlock hasn't hit 20, though it's still usually made more episodes than most streaming shows) I'd just be surprised to see a higher-budget show like a Star Trek spin-off manage it these days,
Scouts excluded; the lower viewing figures of modern broadcast TV likely couldn't support it economically.
Though it's kind of ironic that the shows that require a monthly fee to see produce
less content on average than the "free" shows. Even shows that switched from network to streaming like
Futurama and
King of the Hill did so with reduced episode counts.
So your point still holds true in effect, but generally speaking I cringe at claims that 20-30 episode seasons aren't a thing anymore. I suppose this is really more targeted at that general mindset than your comment specifically.