You don't need to read between the lines to realise that the State Enterprise Policy Committee means business. Deadlines have been set for specific actions to be taken. Failure to live up to the new standards set will mean "yellow cards" for the executives concerned, to be followed by "red cards".
But what does a red card really mean in this case: The replacement of the chief executive officer, or of the whole board of directors? Who's to guarantee that a new board selected under the existing process would produce a more effective team of directors that could choose a superior CEO to turn around, say, the national carrier?
In handing down a list of very specific "must-dos" to Thai Airways' board of directors, the super-board has in effect turned itself into a "management board", directing what the CEO has to do: Achieve some "quick wins" by boosting revenue by Bt1.43 billion and cutting expenses by Bt3 billion by the end of December.
Transport Minister Arkhom Termpitayapaisith says THAI's management has also been told to cut senior staff's salaries and benefits.
"The deadline for this is November 30. Although some action had earlier been taken to reduce benefits for board members and former executives, implementation of these measures has been slow compared to other commercial carriers and budget airlines," the minister said.
The national airline has also been operating with a "top-heavy" management structure, according to Arkhom, who said the super-board had given a clear directive for the management to trim down the number of senior executives, to improve efficiency in the face of stiffer competition.
The super-board, the board of directors and the management seem to have agreed that another problem affecting THAI's revenue is a low level of online bookings. A new target has been set: to jack up the current 14 per cent online ticket sales to 30 per cent by the middle of next year.
However, none of these instructions appears to be very original or necessary, and unless there are other measures issued by the super-board that have not been made public, the picture is not encouraging. Any manager of a business would tell you that boosting revenue and cutting expenses is nothing but Management 101.
The national carrier didn't need a rocket scientist to work out that the wake-up call came years ago when the airline industry was severely disrupted by the emergence of no-frills, budget operators that posed a direct, fierce and unprecedented challenge to the established carriers.
There has been no lack of evidence all along that a thorough shake-up of the management direction, philosophy and structure was unavoidable if the national airline was to survive the competition.
But successive management boards have brushed aside the warnings - and not because the CEOs concerned weren't aware of the looming threat of competition, but because the ownership structure and political interference did not permit professional managers at all levels to perform the duties that any sound business would expect them to follow.
Apparently, the basic increase-revenue-cut-expenses instruction from the super-board to all seven state enterprises on the brink of financial calamity must be just the tip of an iceberg of wide-ranging reform that will roll out after red cards are issued to those that fail the "quick-win" test.
For, without a Plan B in place, the threat to dismantle Plan A if the deadline isn't met would be nothing but an exercise in futility.