I've maintained lots of RHEL boxes as a sysadmin -- here's my take. This type of release cycle works pretty well, in that you can almost always apply patches without hosing your system due to "new features". One example of something this protects you against, is a package changing the expected config file format, or maybe the expected command line arguments. Another good example, would be a change to a kernel driver for some storage array, or network interface, that could quickly break lots of systems!
This type of release cycle also gives commercial software vendors a known target to develop against and sell support for. Say for example, that you are using an enterprise database like Oracle/Sybase/DB2, they will verify their product works against RHEL 5.x/6.x/7.x and give you commercial support, as they have a pretty good understanding of what you are running. But, if the kernel/packages are always moving targets, it would be near impossible to support your end platform, so this also adds to the backporting of security patches without adding features thought process.
Although, it is also a pain, in that you are typically way behind on cool things happening out there on other distros. So, there are pros and cons to it. But, if you are running a large mission critical DB cluster, you typically want things to be extremely stable, so for the target market (the enterprise) this works pretty well.
If we need newer features or packages, we spin up a CentOS7 or RHEL7 image which still isn't bleeding edge, but is significantly newer than RHEL6.
It's nice to have a bit of stability for apps and services that require it - but there's always the option of bringing newer versions online for the services that need it.
For example, in previous releases they've removed ifconfig, and lately, even yum got chopped.
It's like living a few years in the future. systemctl was there years ago.
PS: Docker is a prime example of how a side feature can be instrumental to a pivot to something much larger.