As others have said, from the operational cost and not the pax comfort point of view I would say it was a no brainer. Tech problems tend to occur on take off and landing, wear and tear on the aircraft will double with additional pressurisation cycles, additional landings, (Brakes and gear) and additional take offs, (Engine wear). Additional landing fees, ground staff, (wages) and hotac if FLTs are critical will all add up. Now include a small tech fault that takes two or three hours to detect and clear, (assuming spares and engineering support available), and the crew go out of hours, you now have in the order of 400 hotel beds to find, meals to pay for etc. if you don't, (and are not likely to have), a spare crew ready to go.
As an academic exercise, "would an extra stop reduce fuel consumption", it is interesting in the theoretical sense but the possible exposure to considerable extra costs brought about by normal wear and tear and an unscheduled lay-over surely cancel any advantage?