More competitive? Or, more attractive?
CRNAs have been and always will be around. Perhaps you meant to suggest that, if they were not, anesthesiology would be more lucrative, therefore more competitive and more attractive... right?
Wrong.
CRNAs are, actually, what has made the field more lucrative. The "problem" is that they are a much larger group and have much squeakier wheels when it comes to scope of practice, at least in recent years. Couple that with the fact that there has been (and will continue to be, at least for a while) a shortage of anesthesiologists... and you've pretty much touched the lit matchstick to the dynamite's fuse.
No, I think anesthesiology is attractive already, as was proven this year, and will continue to be. What we need are the right people going into the field: bright, motivated, intelligent, and definitely not passive. I can't imagine it being any more attractive than it is right now. It may seem counterintuitive, but less CRNAs actually make the field less attractive. The issue has more to do with what will ultimately be determination of appropriate levels of "scope of practice" within and between these two groups. The CRNAs are current the vocal majority, and this is why you (perhaps) perceive the field as being not "attractive".
-Skip