Those houses have to invest a ton into production anyway.
And it's not as though under the current model, the most challenging pieces are the ones that sell through the most. The same things will sell as do now: luxurious basics (I'm looking at you, "investment" leather jackets), denim, sneakers, accessories. And right now, behind the scenes, after the show, when buying is actually done, there is a lot of horsetrading and taming of runways pieces so that buyers can feel somewhat secure, making really dramatic stuff both more widely appealing and at a more reasonably pricepoint than the runway piece, as shown, would go for.
At least with the fast fashion model, production can react to an interesting piece that catches fire, and we would skip that intermediate watering down step.
I don't think the companies that can adopt this are the ones who can react to interesting pieces though. Again, they're big fashion houses with lots of store fronts; they have to move a lot more units. They'll be reacting to whatever designer pieces are just a tier "above" them (if we can think of trends as trickling down).
In 2016, that means more safe, tame versions of MA-1s, not some weird, wacky take on the bomber.
At least with the old model, designers have to predict what's going to be hot in a year or so, not just react to sales numbers and trend reports of what's immediately hot now. So they might have to guess whether MA-1s are going to be boring by fall 2017, which in turn means they have to gamble on what they think is reliable in trend forecast reports. That means a slowing down of trends, and probably some kind of diffusion (since I assume people bet on different things -- will printed jackets be popular? Military wear? More minimal design? etc). With this model, it just encourages everyone to move in a big wave, with the biggest companies following whatever pretty tame company is just above them on the "trend ladder."