Can't remember if this had already changed, but this was the first time i noticed google maps was now showing roadways into the new terminal. Still old satellite imagery though.
Apple Maps too. I added them to the Waze map a few weeks ago.
Google and Apple both have the street names wrong, though. They've taken the old Boeing Ln and Lockheed Dr names. In reality, I believe Boeing Ln is gone, and Lockheed Dr is just the bit that provides access to Atlantic Aviation. No mention of "Terminal Dr" either way. I wonder to what extent the Google and Apple additions were automated and to what extent they were done by humans.
I was able to use photos and dash cam footage to match every instruction on the Waze map to the new terminal signage—everything should be completely functional already.
The real test will be Wednesday to see how search and navigation work. I'm going to be staying up tomorrow night and moving all the Waze venues myself at 0:00. Can't speak for the rest.
also what flight is scheduled to be last out of old terminal and which one first at new one?
Last departures Tuesday: 9:25 pm WN933 MSY-TPA & WN449 MSY-HOU
First departure Wednesday: 5:15 am WN3238 MSY-ATL
Last 5 arrivals Tuesday night:
11:44 pm Tue 5 Nov: AS796 SEA-MSY
11:45 pm Tue 5 Nov: AA4672 CLT-MSY
11:55 pm Tue 5 Nov: DL2455 ATL-MSY
12:11 am Wed 6 Nov: B61301 BOS-MSY
12:50 am Wed 6 Nov: WN1067 LAS-MSY
Presumably for logistical reasons the move can actually really be considered to take place after WN1067 arrives and everyone gets off and out.
That's nice and all, but you're not basing it on anything tangible/empirical.
IAH has long been BTR's #2 O&D destination and its #3 for total pax.... by a margin of more than 145daily pax over the next destinations in either respective category.
So we're now supposed to believe that three destinations that aren't in the top 5 of either category as of two years ago, are suddenly now bigger than IAH, based on.... "Joe MxExxon"?
Gonna go with: no.
Hahaha, that's fine—you'll note I didn't cite any statistics. I said "I believe it," as in "I find it believable," not "it's the truth."
Which, to be fair, is a direct response to your finding it "exceedingly difficult to believe." Had you stated anything tangible/empirical in your post (rather than disbelief, however strong), I'd have been happy to believe that over the experience of my anecdotal fictional character. And I am happy to believe the statistics that you have now cited.
Indeed, when writing that post, I'd intended to specify that I had had no intention of checking facts because I hadn't stated any facts, merely a belief in a possible set of facts. I didn't think the disclaimer was necessary, but I suppose it was. My bad.