Methods are nice but suffer from the fact that adding a custom method to a new object is more involved and dangerous than just creating a new function. However, "f(g(h(x)))" is not very readable (at least for English speakers) since while we read left to right, the invocation order is right to left. "x | h | g | f" is arguably more readable since the evaluation order follows reading order (plus you don't have to deal with so many parenthesis).
I want to reemphasize though that introducing a variable is often better practice and that the pipe operator only makes sense when there is no suitable variable name.
There's also a "hierarchy" thing at play. With "f(g(h(x)))", x is "inside" h which is "inside" g which is "inside" f. With "x | h | g | f" all are on the same level. For me at least, it's easier to imagine your data "flow" through functions when they are on the same level. It sound a bit weird when I put it that way, but I don't think I'm alone in feeling that. Fluent interfaces are considered easy to read, and help flatten the code. Same thing with promise chaining compared to the callback > of doom.
But it's not the case for the majority of libraries, including many of the builtin types.
A pipeline operator is generic and can be used everywhere, without requiring the API to be built around chaining. This can often lead to much nicer, more readable code.
I think this is something you only start to really appreciate once you've used it a bit, like in Elixir or F#.
Obviously this is much more natural in a functional language, where everything is immutable anyway.
I really fail to see how those kind of changes bring anything of value to the language, apart from creating complexity where there is much already: some codebases will try and use this before it's ironed out with different / changing / competing transpiler implementation while it is only stage 2. What happened with decorators (see babel-legacy-decorators) should be a warning against enthusiasm for these kind of things and remind me of the pitfalls of macros in the Lisp world...
I am not saying that you should stick with an idiom till the end of time but changes should try and lower that complexity while (in the case of EcmaScript) being backward compatible so as to not break existing stuff.
Btw I love RxJS and its variants, Ben Lesh's talks (as well as those by Matthew Podwysocki, Andre Staltz etc...) from around 2015 and then on were one of the reasons I got into JS as a professional.