Profit is a big motive. For he higher ups, they want to be shown what will be the benefit (in $$) of doing something. That means middle management is going to have to present a proposal in that light and the lower ranks are going to have to convince those middle managers that they should propose a change to the uppers on the grounds that it benefits financially.
And if people are incentivized to think $$, even the lower ranks will come up with good ideas that save money, do things more efficiently and improve customer experience (which relates to improving the bottom line). In the old days at my company, profit sharing was a strong motive and often in our field office, there were comments from us at the bottom that the managers were being wasteful when we would say "You are spending my profit sharing". In government and bad companies, I found that concept lacking so waste was tolerated because nobody cared.
Just look at Amtrak's failure to sufficiently monetize their diners and cafes by running out of items to sell in cafes and denying coach passengers access to diners- even before Covid. Did nobody care enough to say "We can make more money if we have more to sell!" instead of accepting the failure? There is no incentive for an employee with no profit-sharing or other financial incentive to push against lazy management and no incentive for middle management to confront upper management in spite of politicians who just want to point out the increasing subsidies as a stick to push for elimination. Had upper management made more effort to assign a better portion of fares towards dining and really pushed to always have things to sell on board, in stations and online, they would have had a better chance to keep the Micas of the world away. As it was, they took away coach diner income, carried even less in the cafe and "proved" Mica's point. Worse, the execs pull the rug out from their congressional supporters.