You will be surprised, but it is due to the fact that banks were some of the first people to start using computing decades ago, and some of the programs I have seen in use at banks were older than me. Moving everything to a Intel based platform removes that backwards compatability, but z/OS is made with this in mind.
I don't know - for regular client-server computing, I've seen a mix at the 6 banks I've worked at - some Linux, some Windows Server, some Solaris. Most banks have a mix of all three, but have one that they "major" in.
Also, mainframes tend to be more of a Retail banking thing, for the core banking platform.Some Investment Banks use mainframes for back office stuff, but not many (in my experience).
Where I am working now, I have seen plaques in recognition for using a particular mainframe program from VISA for 20+ years. Also, the recently-retired core-banking platform from an acquired retail bank ran on mainframes, but was written in assembler.
What kinds of workloads though? I can see that "supercomputers" might be appropriate for modelling, analysis and reporting but that's a very different kind of scenario to highly available high throughput transaction processing that mainframes have traditionally excelled at.
I'm not saying nobody uses them, but rather that there is a trend to use a NoSQL database on a regular Linux system rather than z/OS.
It's easier to find developers, more widespread support, and hopefully they will be more compatible in the future.
Edit: chuckMcM's comment [1] provides more insight on this. I must admit I've never worked with traditional mainframes myself, but I know of many research groups who are trying to develop new high-troughput data channels for commodity hardware (i.e. fibre-channel disks).
The current trend is going towards Intel+Nvidia+Linux. Anything else might be a good investment for some, but generally a bad idea for most.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4447122