“NO!” Andy gasped for air, but it gave her no relief. She felt all of the plans they had made together slipping away. She and Kent were supposed to have a long life together. See the world together. They were going to start a family together. Their future was being taken away from them because someone couldn’t keep their damn eyes open.
I'm not sure what's happening here, so read this with that cluelessness in mind. :)
“NO!” Andy gasped for air, but it gave her no relief.
The copy editor will lower-case that O, and the exclamation point should be enough to convey the wail.
What is "it?" That's a pronoun, and replaces a noun, not a whole clause (she gasped for air). How about "but she gained no relief" or "she got no relief" or.... Keep in mind that if the reader has to go looking for a noun antecedent to the pronoun, her forward reading motion is stopped, and you've lost. Pronouns are quite useful in eliminating repetition, but their antecedence should be clear on the first read. If not, fix. This is one of those little nagging things that will make your prose jagged instead of smooth, so minor as "it" might seem, you really need to fix.
I'm not sure what sort of relief is needed, because I don't know what the problem is-- is she breathless? There's that awful feeling of being hit in the solar plexus, and that's what I'm getting from this?
She felt all of the plans they had made together slipping away.
You're pretty much in her POV, so you don't need "she felt"-- I don't really have a problem with it, but if I were worried about word count or wordiness, I'd delete.
"They had made" doesn't need "together"-- if "they" made the plans, they would have been together. It's being used as an intensifier, and it's okay, but feels a bit slack.
She and Kent were supposed to have a long life together. See the world together. They were going to start a family together.
Sin boldly. If you're going to use one sentence fragment, use two. I'm still feeling that this is slack. I don't know how to explain it (except you've used together again and again... do you want to emphasize that?), but it doesn't feel very taut, and I suspect you want some sense of conflict and danger (if only emotional) here. See if it's any tauter like this:
She and Kent were supposed to have a long life together. See the world. Start a family.
I don't know-- what do you think?
Their future was being taken away from them because someone couldn’t keep their damn eyes open.
"Someone" is singular and "their" is plural. Sorry, but that's the first thing that jumped out at me. Since "she and Kent" are "their/them" in the first half of the sentence, this is a mistake that is likely to bother more readers than just your editor. Also "being taken away from them" could be replaced by a more vital verb, a single word. was deleted? was risked? And "was" might be the wrong tense there-- would be? might be? "Was being" means it's happening (literary past), right now, and it's not a prediction. If you want that, okay, but if she's just imagining this might happen, go with "would be" or "could be" to keep it conditional.
But also, the sentence is a passive construction, and that's something else that might strip the vitality from your passage. Their future was being taken away-- by whom? Does that matter? I don't know, but consider it and see if you can recast to make it active.
I don't like "damn eyes" because the rhythm seems wrong-- goddamn eyes?
I don't know what you mean by that, but I'm assuming it's clear in the scene.
I would suggest you look for ways to make this feel more taut and immediate, if possible. This seems like just a split second between realization and results of an event, and if so, you want to make the commentary in between as sharp and quick as you can.