>>>Perhaps I am in the minority, but I love Porter for the boutique experience and the simple short haul flights. Knowing that Porter was weighed down by being part of a cumbersome international system (being forced to wait for connections, luggage issues, etc) is not attractive. That is why you would go to Pearson.<<<
There isn't any real reason why it can't be both. If they offer frequent service to an airport that another airline uses as a hub, they can offer connecting opportunities without impacting their O&D customers at all. You can fly to Newark and connect to a US airline or you can simply leave the airport at Newark. People going to New York/New Jersey aren't affected at all by the connection opportunities.
This assumes frequent service. Non-connecting passengers could potentially if there are not many flights and they focus timing to connecting flights rather than when people want to go to that city. This shouldn't be a real problem though, if they offer at least 5-6 flights a day.
There is, of course, the danger that the planes will fill up with connecting passengers reducing the number of seats available to non-connecting ones. On the other hand, if the planes are full, they will be inclined to increase their frequency.
One other area where they would have to decide between connecting and non-connecting traffic is in choosing airports. In Cleveland, for example, flying to Burke would be convenient for people going to downtown Cleveland, but not for people wanting to connect on to other destinations. In these situations, they might want to consider offering service to both airports with flights timed for connecting at CLE and flights timed for business and/or tourists at BKE.
Personally, I would prefer downtown airports over connecting ones if it comes down to a choice, though.