No, that's not how any of this works. Try to think for a moment why we still overwhelmingly use non-jumbo jets for aviation in a world where jumbo jets exist.
Not to mention that making the upper stage and payload fairing much bigger and heavier juat so you can recover them is not an automatic win. You can recover it, but you’ve also made it much more expensive in the first place. And the booster needs to be bigger, heavier and more expensive, too.
It’s not an automatic deal breaker, of course. Falcon 9 is obviously a promising success. But Starship is also working with some new challenges that Falcon 9 didn’t have to worry about.
Many of these stem from design compromises that were forced by Starship’s secondary goal of being capable of a trip to Mars. In that respect, it very much resembles another major project to produce a heavy launch vehicle with a reusable combination payload fairing and upper stage that is also capable of carrying a human crew: the Space Shuttle.
I think their point might have been more that there just wasn’t as much need for jets that big in the first place. The jumbo jets are meant for a business model that pushes consumers into making extra compromises on their plans (like more and longer layovers) to accommodate the operator’s need to fill bigger planes with more people to make things economical. It turns out that many consumers are happy to spend a bit more on a direct flight instead of a 3 leg journey with one long flight on an widebody sandwiched between two “last mile” hops on a CRJ700.
The rocketry analogy would be choosing between (possibly - we can’t know numbers until Starship is commercially operational) paying a bit more but waiting less time for a Falcon 9 launch that puts you right into the orbit you want, or waiting for a bus ride on a Starship launch that only gets everyone to a compromise orbit in the general area of where they want to be and requires them to pack an extra motor and fuel for transferring the spacecraft to its final destination.
