Re: The "atmosphere" end, I posted the following on the original Elliot thread to someone who opined that the flight was held only because the person attempting to make the flight was an employee of Northrop-Grumman, a major aviation and aerospace concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is for Jules, who speculated that the passenger’s employer (Northrop Grumman) somehow drove the Captain’s decision to hold the flight. With the utmost respect, please consider the following, and draw your own conclusion.

Some years ago, late one evening, one of my flights text messaged me (the dispatcher) that an elderly passenger had apparently died onboard. They were about halfway to their destination, and although there was an alternate airport about 10 minutes closer that we could have diverted to, the Captain and I jointly decided to keep pressing on to the scheduled destination. The passenger was traveling with her adult daughter, had terminal cancer (and was DNR), and had just been released from hospice care so she could return home and spend her last days surrounded by family. Diverting the flight to the closer alternate airport would have served no useful purpose since it would have stranded the daughter and her now-deceased mother in a strange city where they had no family support. The flight attendants re-seated some of the other passengers to give the daughter some privacy, and special arrangements were made to have relatives and the appropriate authorities meet the flight at the destination.

You may be thinking that the above doesn’t really prove anything, and that the “true” motive really must have been to avoid a costly diversion. If so, please also consider the following.

On another flight from Florida to New England, the Captain called in over Virginia with a passenger medical issue. An elderly passenger was suddenly having “excruciating” pain in one eye—one that they’d just had surgery on the week before. Consultation with an ER doctor indicated that there was nothing they could do for the passenger and that they’d have EMS awaiting the flight’s arrival 1:15 down the line at the airport in New England. Neither myself or the Captain were agreeable to keeping the passenger in such pain for any longer than absolutely necessary, and we diverted the flight to Baltimore, where the flight landed 20 minutes later. The passenger later finished his journey by train.

In the latter event, the Captain and I took action even though we didn’t “have to” and although the diversion cost our airline some money, it was the “right” thing, and the humane thing to do. If the former event would have required a similar costly diversion, we’d have done one, but as I said, the specific situation didn’t warrant it.

In neither of the above events did the Captains of the flights or I receive any flak whatsoever for our decisions. One of the key constants I’ve observed my nearly 35 years at SWA has been the level of empowerment of front-line employees to do what’s right.

To Nancy and Mark, my heartfelt condolences your loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Southwest certainly doesn't have any "exclusive" on employees doing the right thing, but relative to what my cohorts at some other airlines share with me, my sense is that it happens more frequently at Southwest than elsewhere.