Not a "structure" fire - it was a "large passenger vehicle" fire.
First priority is evacuation and rescue - and blasting the only exits with high-pressure foam and water will not enhance that objective. From about 5:50 on one can see firefighters entering the cabin via the doors for search and rescue (did pull 5 people out), and you don't want to trap them by blasting the doors either.
Second "first" priority is fire suppression to allow more time for search and rescue - thus the heavy equipment is focused on the active fire in the vicinity of the right wing, fuel tanks and spilled fuel. With some occasional overspray onto the cabin roof.
Understand. Concur, first priority is rescue, and suppression for said rescue. Priority is always life vs structure.
While it was evident the fire crew was trying, what I did not see was the ability to effectively do that, with the multiple failed attempts illustrated in the video to even get anything on the hotspot. Beginning at around 3:40, you begin to see several attempts to get suppression on the ac on the starboard side.
Unfortunately, what I also note are multiple attempts by the crew to direct the suppression, appearing to use a fire and adjust technique, rather than a focused attack.
I have been involved with control and after action assessments of structural fires, which are, unfortunately common.
My thoughts are, looking at this video, and in review of other recent aviation events such as in Dubai, that the standards for equipage of airport assets have not evolved with experience as other fire fighting standards have.