NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

Notice is hereby given that the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of TransDigm Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), will be held at 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3000, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., Eastern time, for the following purposes:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on January 22, 2018 will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting or any adjournment of the meeting.

Your vote is important. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, please vote on the Internet, by phone or by completing and returning the enclosed proxy card.

By order of the Board of Directors,

Halle Fine Terrion

Secretary

February 6, 2018

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE STOCKHOLDERS MEETING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 20, 2018.

The Proxy Statement and Proxy Card are available at

http://www.transdigm.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196053&p=proxy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROXY STATEMENT

The Company’s Board of Directors is sending you this proxy statement to ask for your vote as a stockholder of TransDigm Group Incorporated (the “Company”) on matters to be voted on at the upcoming annual meeting of stockholders. The meeting will be held at 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3000, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., Eastern time. The Company is mailing this proxy statement and the accompanying notice of meeting and proxy form, along with the Company’s Annual Report to Stockholders, on or about February 6, 2018.

ABOUT THE MEETING

What is the purpose of the annual meeting of stockholders?

The purpose of the annual meeting of stockholders is to vote on matters outlined in the accompanying notice of meeting, including the election of 11 directors, an advisory vote on executive compensation, and the ratification of the Company’s selection of its independent accountants. We are not aware of any other matter that will be presented for your vote at the meeting.

Who is entitled to vote?

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on the record date, January 22, 2018, are entitled to receive notice of the meeting and to vote the shares of common stock that they held on the record date at the meeting, or any postponement or adjournment of the meeting. Each outstanding share of common stock entitles its holder to cast one vote on each matter to be voted on. As of the record date, the Company had outstanding 52,178,034 shares of common stock.

Who can attend the meeting?

Only stockholders as of the record date, or their duly appointed proxies, may attend the meeting. If you hold your shares in “street name” (that is, through a broker or other nominee), your name does not appear in the Company’s records, so you will need to bring a copy of your brokerage statement reflecting your ownership of shares of common stock as of the record date.

When and where is the meeting?

The meeting will be held at 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3000, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., Eastern time. For directions to the meeting, call Investor Relations at (216) 706-2945.

Who is soliciting my proxy?

This solicitation of proxies is made by and on behalf of the Company’s Board of Directors. The Company will bear the cost of the solicitation of proxies. In addition to the solicitation of proxies by mail, regular employees of the Company and its subsidiaries may solicit proxies by telephone, facsimile or email. In addition, we have retained Alliance Advisors, LLC, 200 Broadacres Drive, 3rd Floor, Bloomfield, NJ 07003, at an estimated cost of $20,000, plus customary costs and expenses, to aid in the solicitation of proxies from brokers, institutional holders and individuals who own a large number of shares of common stock. The Company’s employees will not receive any additional compensation for their participation in the solicitation.

How do I vote by proxy?

Whether or not you plan to attend the annual meeting, please vote on the Internet, by phone or by completing and returning the enclosed proxy card.

1

Voting by Mail. If you are a stockholder of record, you may vote by signing, dating and returning your proxy card in the enclosed prepaid envelope. The proxy holders will vote your shares in accordance with your directions. If you sign the proxy form but do not make specific choices, your proxy will vote your shares as recommended by the Board of Directors to elect the director nominees listed in “Election of Directors,” in favor of the proposal to approve the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers and in favor of ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young as the Company’s independent accountants. If any other matter is presented, your proxy will vote in accordance with his best judgment. As of the date of this proxy statement, we are not aware of other matters to be acted on at the annual meeting other than those matters described in this proxy statement.

If you hold shares in street name, you should complete, sign and date the voting instruction card provided to you by your broker or nominee.

Voting on the Internet or by Telephone. If you are a stockholder of record, detailed instructions for Internet and telephone voting are attached to your proxy card. Your Internet or telephone vote authorizes the proxy holders to vote your shares in the same manner as if you signed and returned your proxy card by mail. If you are a stockholder of record and you vote on the Internet or by telephone, your vote must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 19, 2018; you should not return your proxy card.

May I revoke my proxy?

If you give a proxy, you may revoke it at any time before it is exercised by giving written notice to the Company at its principal executive offices located at 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3000, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, or by giving notice to the Company in open meeting. Your presence at the annual meeting, without any further action on your part, will not revoke your previously granted proxy.

What constitutes a quorum?

The presence at the annual meeting, either in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock outstanding on the record date will represent a quorum permitting the conduct of business at the meeting. Proxies received by the Company marked as abstentions or broker non-votes will be included in the calculation of the number of shares considered to be present at the meeting.

What vote is required to approve each proposal assuming that a quorum is present at the Annual Meeting?

The eleven nominees receiving the greatest number of votes ‘FOR’ election will be elected as directors. If you do not vote for a particular director nominee, or if you indicate ‘WITHHOLD AUTHORITY’ for a particular nominee on your proxy form, your vote will not count either for or against the nominee. If your shares are held in “street name” by a broker or nominee indicating on a proxy that it does not have authority to vote on this or any other proposal, this will result in a “broker non-vote,” which will not count as a vote for or a vote against any of the nominees.

The approval of executive compensation is an advisory vote; however, the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee will consider the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote on the proposal as approval of the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers. Broker non-votes will not have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of this proposal. Abstentions will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.

Although the Audit Committee may select the Company’s independent accountants without stockholder approval, the Audit Committee will consider the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present in

2

person or by proxy and entitled to vote on the proposal to be a ratification by the stockholders of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent accountants. Broker non-votes will not have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of this proposal. Abstentions will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table sets forth information regarding the beneficial ownership of Company common stock as of January 3, 2018 with respect to each person known to be a beneficial owner of more than five percent of the outstanding common stock.

3

The following table sets forth information regarding the beneficial ownership of Company common stock as of January 3, 2018 with respect to each director and named executive officer of the Company and all directors and executive officers as a group. Except as indicated in the footnotes to this table and subject to applicable community property laws, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock listed as beneficially owned by them. None of the shares held by directors or executive officers are pledged. The address for each individual listed below is c/o TransDigm Group Incorporated, 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3000, Cleveland, Ohio 44114.

4

5

PROPOSAL ONE: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The total number of directors is fixed at eleven. At this annual meeting, the terms of all of the directors are expiring. Unless you specify otherwise, the shares of common stock represented by your proxy will be voted to re-elect all of the directors. The eleven nominees receiving the most votes will be elected as directors. If elected, each nominee will serve as a director for a one-year term and until his successor is duly elected and qualified.

If for any reason any of the nominees is not a candidate when the election occurs (which is not expected), the Board intends that proxies will be voted for the election of a substitute nominee designated by the Board as recommended by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

The following information is furnished with respect to each director nominee.

6

7

8

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommends potential director candidates to the Board. In making its recommendations, consistent with the Committee’s charter, the Committee considers independence, as well as diversity, age, strategic and financial skills and experience, in the context of the needs of the Board as a whole. The Committee’s charter requires the selection of prospective Board members with personal and professional integrity who have demonstrated appropriate ability and judgment and whom the Committee believes will be effective, in conjunction with the other Board members, in collectively serving the long-term interests of the Company and its stockholders. There are no other stated criteria for director nominees, and the Committee considers other factors as it deems appropriate in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. However, the Committee’s charter and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth the Board’s commitment to seek out highly qualified women and minorities to include in the pool from which Board nominees are chosen.

9

The Committee identifies nominees by first evaluating current Board members willing to continue in service. If any Board member does not wish to continue to serve or if the Committee or Board decides not to nominate a member for re-election, then the Committee identifies the desired skills and experience in light of the criteria outlined above. The Committee then establishes potential director candidates from recommendations from the Board, senior management, stockholders and third parties. The Committee may retain a search consultant to supplement potential Board candidates if it deems it advisable.

As reflected on the previous pages, each Board member was chosen to be a director nominee because the Board and Committee believe that he demonstrated leadership experience, specific industry or manufacturing experience and experience with capital market transactions. Every director holds or has held executive positions in organizations that have provided him with experience in management and leadership development. The Board and the Committee believe that these skills and qualifications, combined with each director’s diverse background and ability to work in a positive and collegial fashion, benefit the Company and its stockholders by creating a strong and effective Board.

Messrs. Barr and McCullough were appointed as directors by the Board of Directors at the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee in October 2017 after management and Board members reviewed several candidates and personally interviewed four candidates, including two men, one of whom (Mr. McCullough) was a minority, and two women. Mr. McCullough was recommended to the Board of Directors by Mr. Hennessy and Mr. Barr was recommended to the Board of Directors by Mr. Howley, with the support of several Board members who had previously served with Mr. Barr. Messrs. Barr and McCullough were elected by the Board of Directors in light of their qualifications discussed above. In preparation of the annual meeting to which this proxy relates, prior to the solicitation of proxies, the Company reviewed governance practices with eight shareholders, representing over 40% of shares outstanding. One common area of concern was the lack of gender diversity on our Board of Directors, of which we have taken note.

The Committee will consider stockholder suggestions concerning qualified candidates for election as directors. To recommend a prospective nominee for the Committee’s consideration, a stockholder must submit the candidate’s name and qualifications to the Company’s Secretary, Halle Fine Terrion, at the following address: TransDigm Group Incorporated, 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3000, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. The Committee has not established specific minimum qualifications a candidate must have in order to be recommended to the Board. However, in determining qualifications for new directors, the Committee will consider potential members’ independence, as well as diversity, age, skill and experience in the context of the Board’s needs.

Stockholders who wish to nominate directors directly for election at an annual meeting should do so in accordance with the procedures in our Bylaws. In addition, the Company recently amended its Bylaws to provide proxy access to eligible stockholders. The proxy access Bylaw provides that a stockholder, or group of up to 20 stockholders, that owns 3% or more of the Company’s outstanding common stock continuously for at least three years may submit director nominees for the greater of two directors or 20% of the Board seats provided that the stockholder and nominees satisfy the requirements specified in our Bylaws. See “STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2019 MEETING” for more information about the procedures for direct nominations and proxy access.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr. Howley, the only director who is also an employee of the Company, does not receive any director fees.

10

Compensation for non-employee directors for 2017 was as follows:

In addition, every two years, the Company makes a grant of stock options to each outside director valued at $300,000 on a Black Scholes basis covering compensation for two fiscal years, granted on the same terms and conditions as those granted to Company employees, which vests over five years. In fiscal 2016, all the directors other than Mr. Laubenthal received such a grant for compensation in fiscal 2016 and 2017; Mr. Laubenthal retained a portion of options from his tenure as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and therefore did not receive equity compensation at that time. All of the outside directors received such a grant in November 2017 covering compensation for fiscal 2018 and 2019. The terms of the options are discussed in greater detail under “Executive Compensation – Equity Based Incentives – Options.” Non-employee directors must maintain equity in the Company (i.e., stock or vested in-the-money options) equal to at least $250,000.

In addition, pursuant to an agreement entered into in 1999 between TransDigm Inc. and Mr. Peacock, TransDigm Inc. is obligated to provide Mr. Peacock and his wife with medical and dental insurance coverage comparable to what they were receiving at the time of Mr. Peacock’s retirement. In light of the Company’s transition to self-insurance, in 2007, TransDigm Inc. and Mr. Peacock agreed that TransDigm Inc. would satisfy its obligations under the 1999 agreement by paying for Mr. Peacock’s Medicare and dental insurance coverage, Mrs. Peacock’s medical and dental insurance coverage, and supplemental medical reimbursement coverage for both Mr. and Mrs. Peacock, less the amount of any Company employee portion of the premium under the Company’s self-insurance program as if Mr. and Mrs. Peacock were covered under those benefit plans. TransDigm Inc. also agreed to retain a health insurance consultant to assist Mr. and Mrs. Peacock in evaluating coverage and handling the administrative burden of the Medicare and insurance enrollment process at the outset and thereafter managing claims issues. These payments are made on a “grossed-up” basis for federal income tax purposes, but no gross-up payment related to fiscal 2017 has yet been made. The cost of coverage and related services under these arrangements in fiscal 2017 was approximately $11,560 and the cost of the gross-up payment for 2016, paid in January 2017, was $12,633.

The following table sets forth the compensation paid to the Company’s non-employee directors during fiscal 2017. Messrs. Barr and McCullough were not directors during fiscal 2017.

11

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, which guide it in the performance of its responsibilities to serve the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. A copy of the Corporate Governance Guidelines is posted on the Company’s website, www.transdigm.com, under “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance” and is available to any stockholder in writing upon request to the Company. The Board reviews the Corporate Governance Guidelines periodically.

Codes of Ethics & Whistleblower Policy

We are committed to integrity and ethical behavior and have adopted a Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and a Whistleblower Policy. Each of these documents is posted on the Company’s website, www.transdigm.com, under “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance” and is available to any stockholder in writing upon request to the Company.

Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers. We have a Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers that applies to the chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, division presidents, controllers, treasurer and director of internal audit (collectively, “Senior Financial Officers”). This code requires Senior Financial Officers to: act with honesty and integrity; endeavor to provide information that is full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable in all reports and documents that the Company files with, or submits to, the SEC and other public filings or communications made by the Company; endeavor to comply with all laws, rules and regulations of federal, state and local governments and all applicable private or public regulatory agencies; not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent material facts or allow their independent judgment to be compromised; not use for personal advantage confidential information acquired in the course of their employment; proactively promote ethical behavior among peers and subordinates in the workplace; and promptly report any violation or suspected violation of the code to the Audit Committee. Only the Audit Committee or the Board may waive a provision of the code with respect to a Senior Financial Officer. Any such waiver, or any amendment to the code, will be promptly disclosed on the Company’s website and as otherwise required by rule or regulation. There were no such waivers or amendments in 2017.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. We also have a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that reflects the Company’s commitment to honesty, integrity and the ethical behavior of Company employees, officers and directors. The code governs the actions, interactions and working relationships of Company employees, officers and directors with customers, fellow employees, competitors, government and self-regulatory agencies, investors, the public, the media, and anyone else with whom the Company has contact. The code sets forth the expectation that employees, officers and directors will conduct business legally and addresses conflict of interest situations, protection and use of Company assets, corporate opportunities, fair dealing, confidentiality and reporting of illegal or unethical behavior. Only the Board or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may waive a provision of the code with respect to an executive officer or director. Any such waiver will be promptly disclosed on the Company’s website and as otherwise required by rule or regulation. There were no such waivers or amendments in 2017.

12

Whistleblower Policy. The purpose of the Whistleblower Policy is to encourage employees to disclose alleged wrongdoing that may adversely impact the Company, its customers or stockholders, fellow employees or the public, without fear of retaliation. The policy sets forth procedures for reporting alleged financial and non-financial wrongdoing on a confidential and anonymous basis, a process for investigating reported acts of alleged wrongdoing and a policy of non-retaliation. Reports may be made directly to the CFO, Audit Committee or Convercent, a third party service retained on behalf of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee chair receives notices of complaints and oversees investigation of complaints of financial wrongdoing.

Board Composition

The Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that the number of directors shall be fixed from time to time by a resolution of the majority of its Board of Directors. The number of directors is currently fixed at eleven. The directors are elected for one-year terms.

Independence of Directors

Currently, all of the directors, other than Messrs. Howley and Laubenthal, are “independent directors” within the meaning of the NYSE’s listing standards. In determining that Mr. Staer is independent, the Board considered Mr. Staer’s former relationship with Satair and Satair’s relationship to the Company, as well as the former relationship between Mr. Howley and Satair. In determining that Mr. Peacock is independent, the Board considered the insurance arrangement between Mr. Peacock and the Company described in this proxy statement under “Director Compensation.” We do not have separate criteria for determining independence, different from the NYSE listing standards. The Board of Directors reviews periodically the relationships that each director or nominee has with the Company (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company). Those directors or nominees whom the Board affirmatively determines have no material relationship with the Company (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company) that would preclude independence as specified in the listing standards of the NYSE will be considered independent.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board leadership structure is comprised of a combined Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. The Board believes that combining the function of CEO and Chairman is appropriate for the Company because it ensures that the Board focuses on important strategic objectives and understands challenges facing the Company in its day-to-day operations. This combined role is balanced by the independence of the other directors and the role of the presiding director described below.

The Board uses a presiding director, who is an independent director that leads regularly scheduled executive sessions of the non-management and independent directors. The Board designates the presiding director at each meeting on a rotating basis.

Board Self-Evaluation

The Board and each of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee conduct a self-evaluation annually.

Board’s Role in Risk Management Oversight

The Board oversees the process of risk management. Management regularly communicates with the Board regarding the Company’s risk exposure and its efforts to monitor and mitigate such risks. Specifically, the Company’s executive officers meet annually to discuss the material risks facing the Company and ways to mitigate those risks. Management then provides a summary of its findings to the Board and the Board reviews and discusses such risks at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.

13

Board Meetings

The Board held six meetings in fiscal 2017. Each director attended more than 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board and committees on which he served in fiscal 2017. The Board does not hold a meeting on the date of the Company’s annual stockholder meeting and the Company has not established a policy regarding director attendance at the stockholder meeting. One director attended the 2017 annual stockholder meeting; no stockholders attended the meeting in person. After each meeting of the Board, non-management directors meet independently of the CEO and Chairman and independent directors meet independently. In fiscal 2017, non-management directors and independent directors met in executive session after each regularly scheduled Board meeting.

Board Committees

The Board of Directors has an Executive Committee, a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, an Audit Committee and a Compensation Committee. The members of the committees are as set forth in the following table:

14

Details regarding the responsibilities and meetings of the Nominating & Corporate Governance, Audit and Compensation Committees are set forth below.

The Executive Committee possesses the power of the Board of Directors during intervals between Board meetings. The Executive Committee held no formal meetings during fiscal 2017, although it did act by unanimous written consent.

Copies of the charters for the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, Audit Committee and Compensation Committee are posted on the Company’s website, www.transdigm.com, under “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance” and are available to any stockholder in writing upon request to the Company.

15

Stockholder Communication with Board of Directors

Any stockholder or other interested party who desires to communicate with any of the members of the Board of Directors may do so electronically by sending an email to ir@transdigm.com. Alternatively, an individual may communicate with the members of the Board by writing to the Company, c/o Investor Relations, TransDigm Group Incorporated, 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3000, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. Communications may be addressed to an individual director, a Board committee, the independent directors or the full Board of Directors. Communications received by Investor Relations will be distributed to the appropriate directors. Solicitations for the sale of merchandise, publications or services of any kind will not be forwarded to the directors.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

The Board of Directors reviews and must approve all related party transactions. Proposed transactions between the Company and related persons (as defined in Regulation S-K Item 404 under the Securities Act of 1933) are submitted to the full Board for consideration. The relationship of the parties and the terms of the proposed transaction are reviewed and discussed by the Board and the Board may approve or disapprove the Company entering into the transaction. All related party transactions, whether or not those transactions must be disclosed under Regulation S-K Item 404, are approved by the Board pursuant to the policy.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Executive Compensation Philosophy — Overview and Key Take-Aways

As our investors are well aware, TransDigm’s guiding mission is unique amongst public companies in that our company goal is to provide the liquidity of a public company with private equity like returns. By extension, our executive compensation program is designed with this private equity philosophy in mind and thus has the primary goal of closely aligning the interests of executives and other key employees with those of stockholders.

The Compensation Committee applies this philosophy with a focus on designing a competitive total compensation package that enables the Company to attract and retain qualified executives and senior management based on their responsibilities and the Company’s performance. The Committee is mindful that much of the competitive talent pool is in the private markets where ownership principles are heavily ingrained in the leadership team and reflected in compensation programs. As a result, management’s salaries are well below peer medians, but there is considerable upside potential if the Company delivers superior or private equity-like performance.

To ensure that management interests are completely aligned with those of stockholders, the key tenets of the Company’s executive compensation program are:

Incentives are 100% Performance-based

Both annual and long-term incentives are tied to Company performance against Annual Operating Performance (“AOP”) growth each year, with minimum vesting at 10% growth and maximum vesting at 17.5% growth. Short-term incentives incorporate both AOP and EBITDA (as defined in the Company’s

16

Credit Agreement), weighting each factor 50%. Long-term incentives are subject to achievement of cumulative growth targets over the applicable multi-year period. The Committee believes that the additional metric underpinning short-term incentives and the use of cumulative growth rates for long-term incentives mitigate any risk potentially associated with the use of the same metric of both annual and long-term incentives.

Robust Performance Conditions for Options

Performance incentives are subject to rigorous vesting hurdles: the minimum threshold for any option vesting requires a 10% cumulative growth in AOP. For maximum vesting, the cumulative growth rate required is 17.5% for each performance period. The Committee chose the AOP metric to focus management on EBITDA growth, management of capital structure, cash generation, and acquisition performance.

Future capital structure changes are accounted for by adjustments made at the time such events occur. For instance, targets are adjusted for dividends paid to stockholders and share repurchases. The Committee believes the adjustments are appropriate and necessary to account for the early return to stockholders because if a portion of the investment is returned early via special dividend or other form of return of capital, the subsequent years’ targets must be adjusted to reflect the revised capital structure and maintain the same IRR-based performance requirements. Adjustment of the targets does not make the targets any easier to achieve but rather simply ensures that the IRR targets identified by the Committee are maintained.

How do we achieve our target growth? As described above, our long-term objective is to give stockholders well performing, private equity-like returns. We believe use of AOP as a metric best aligns management with that goal. In order to get to 17.5% growth, we must focus on underlying business operations, capital structure and utilization and growth through acquisitions. Generally, and on average, we plan to achieve our growth target as follows:

17

We believe use of this AOP option target maximally incents our leadership team to drive sustainable long-term value for all stockholders. As defined, AOP growth effectively assesses value creation by taking into account many aspects of the Company’s performance without focusing on a single measure. As such, it is unique — eliminating the need for several different metrics—and achieves an unusually high level of pay-for-performance alignment by emphasizing long-term stockholder value.

Incentivize Long-Term Executive Stock Ownership

To ensure continued alignment of management interests with those of stockholders, the Committee has adopted rigorous stock ownership guidelines that require the CEO to own at least $10 million in Company equity, including at least $5 million in actual common stock. Other NEOs are subject to lower, though similarly challenging, guidelines. These robust guidelines, coupled with a strict prohibition on pledging, hedging and derivative trading for all employees have ensured that all executives have and will continue to have a significant amount of value held in Company stock, thereby solidifying ongoing direct alignment with stockholders. All named executive officers have exceeded their respective guidelines.

To ensure that optionholders are incentivized to retain (as opposed to exercise) fully vested performance options, the Committee believes it critical to equate employees to stockholders, ensuring they are not deprived of the benefits of being a stockholder. To that end, the Committee determined that optionholders be entitled to dividend equivalents.

Dividend Equivalents Explained

				DEP								NO DEP
		Stock Price Before Dividend		$	100							$	100
		Option Strike Price			(25	)							(25	)
		Option Value to Holder			75								75
		$50 Dividend:
		Stock Price After Dividend		$	50							$	50
		Option Strike Price			(25	)							(25	)
		Option Value to Holder			25								25
		Dividend Equivalent Right			50								-
		Value to Option Holder		$	75							$	25

No DEP Would be Significant Disincentive for Executive Management Team Who Receives Majority of Compensation in Stock Options

To align management and stockholders, the Company’s dividend equivalent plans provide optionholders with the right to receive DEPs if the Board declares a dividend on the Company’s common stock. The Committee strongly believes that absent the DEPs, the optionholders are at a clear disadvantage to stockholders, which would incentivize the exercise and sale of the vested option and could undermine the alignment of their interests with those of stockholders.

Importantly, pursuant to the DEPs, employees receive dividend equivalent payments on options (i) that have vested based on rigorous performance criteria, and (ii) that the optionholder has chosen not to exercise even though vested.

18

As illustrated above, the Committee believes that excluding employees from sharing in the capital return to all stockholders would be contrary to incentivizing them to maintain alignment with stockholder interests.

Limited Cash Compensation

Given the emphasis on performance-conditioned incentives, cash executive compensation represents a reduced percentage of total compensation. In the case of CEO Mr. Howley and Vice Chairman Mr. Henderson, following amendments to their employment agreements in 2015 and 2016, respectively, they receive no base salary or annual bonus in cash except for nominal amounts to cover participation co-premiums for health insurance and related taxes. Moreover, for other executives that receive cash compensation, the company benchmarks between the 25^th and 35^th percentile of the Company’s peers.

Compensation Philosophy is Working

That the Committee philosophy is creating value for stockholders is evidenced by:

19

		o   $46 per share in dividends in fiscal 2017, or $2.4  billion   o   $390 million share repurchases in 2017   o   $106 per share in dividends over past 5 years, or $5.6 billion   o   $757 million share repurchase over past 5 years

20

o  Unusual Stock Price Volatility in Fiscal 2017   o  We believe largely due to orchestrated media campaign by short sellers   o  One-year TSR wildly varies based on starting point (see chart)   o  Yet, operational excellence continues with:   ◾  Sales Growth of 11%   ◾  EBITDA As Defined Growth of 14%   o  TDG stock recently hit an all-time high

Conclusion

During fiscal 2017, the Company continued to excel in its operations but experienced unusually high volatility in its stock, based in large part on an orchestrated media campaign by short sellers to drive down the price of the Company’s stock. The Company strategically determined not to respond to allegations and instead determined to let the business and its results speak for themselves. The Company stock price has since recovered to reach its all-time high, creating significant value for stockholders. The Company’s ongoing progress in executing its strategy for building and sustaining stockholder value, coupled with a compensation program heavily leaning toward performance-based criteria, form an appropriate framework within which executive compensation decisions are made by the Committee.

Excellence in Performance

Operationally, the Company had yet another good year. Net sales rose 11% to $3.5 billion, and net income from continuing operations rose 7% to $629 million, or $8.45 per share. Fiscal 2017 “EBITDA As Defined” increased 14% to $1.7 billion. “EBITDA As Defined” as a percentage of net sales was approximately 49% for the year. This “EBITDA As Defined” margin was up almost 200 basis points on a year over year basis. Fiscal 2017 adjusted net income, excluding expenses related to acquisitions, non-cash stock compensation, refinancing and other non-recurring charges rose 8% to $687 million, or $12.38 per share.

In recognition of our performance and our unique business model, TransDigm was named to the Forbes 2017 World’s Most Innovative Companies list, an honor our Company has also received multiple times in the past.

21

Alignment of Executive Interests

The Committee believes that the superior operational performance and consistent stock price outperformance is a direct consequence of the continued alignment of the interests of management with those of stockholders. We believe that the confluence of these interests incentivizes management to execute on initiatives that drive the long-term success of the Company and continue to drive sustainable value creation for all its stakeholders.

Performance-driven Compensation

Critical to maintaining the link between management and stockholders is our executive compensation program. The 100% performance-based incentives underscore the link between executive pay and Company performance. Pursuant to the amendments to their employment agreements, our CEO and Vice Chairman receive all but $7,000 and $10,000, respectively, (for healthcare and related taxes) in performance options – effectively 100% of their compensation is performance-based. Multi-year performance periods with robust performance hurdles ensure execution of initiatives that create long-term value. Once the performance options vest, stringent stock ownership guidelines coupled with the strict prohibition on hedging and pledging of Company shares ensure the prevalence of an ownership culture amongst executives that underpins the convergence of the interests of management and stockholders, ultimately responsible for the tremendous stockholder value evidenced over the history of the Company.

Hence, the Committee and Board are recommending that stockholders approve the advisory vote on executive compensation.

Executive Compensation Program

The Committee has overall responsibility for establishing, implementing, and monitoring the executive compensation program for executive officers. Mr. Howley recommends to the Committee, for its approval, option awards for all officers other than himself and salary and bonus amounts for the Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President – Mergers & Acquisitions. Mr. Stein, President and Chief Operating Officer, recommends to the Committee, for its approval, salary and bonus amounts for the other executive officers. The Committee reviews Mr. Howley’s and Mr. Stein’s recommendations and ultimately determines the salary, bonus and option award, if applicable. The Committee determines Mr. Howley’s salary and bonus amounts (from which his option award is determined) without his input. Generally, individual performance, company performance, market conditions and other factors are considered in determining compensation. The Committee generally does not consider the tax or accounting treatment of items of compensation in structuring its compensation packages, except that it makes an effort to ensure that any deferred compensation is compliant with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

2017 Compensation Committee Actions

The Committee took routine actions during 2017, including granting options and approving annual salaries and bonuses.

In addition, as disclosed in last year’s proxy, the Committee approved an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Kevin Stein, pursuant to which Mr. Stein serves as President and Chief Operating Officer. The Employment Agreement, dated December 14, 2016, replaced Mr. Stein’s Employment Agreement dated October 29, 2014, as amended. The primary purpose of the amendments contained in the Employment Agreement as compared to the prior agreement was to account for Mr. Stein’s change in title, to change his target bonus from 80% to 100% of his base salary and to extend his ability to terminate for good reason if he does not become Chief Executive Officer so that he may now terminate for good reason if he is not appointed Chief Executive Officer by

22

December 31, 2019, as well as increase the severance payable on such event to two times his annual salary and bonus. Formerly he had a right to terminate for good reason if he was not appointed Chief Executive Officer by December 31, 2017 and the severance payable therefor was 1.5 times his annual salary and bonus. Unless earlier terminated by the Company or Mr. Stein, the term of the Employment Agreement expires on October 1, 2021. See “Employment Agreements – Employment Agreements with Other Executive Officers” on pages 48-49 for further information and a more complete description of the agreement.

Also as disclosed in last year’s proxy, the Committee approved an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Robert Henderson, pursuant to which Mr. Henderson serves as Vice Chairman of the Company. The Employment Agreement replaced Mr. Henderson’s Employment Agreement dated February 24, 2011, as amended. The term of the Employment Agreement expires on December 31, 2018, unless earlier terminated by the Company or Mr. Henderson. The provision for automatic renewal of the agreement was deleted. The Employment Agreement contemplates that Mr. Henderson will spend about three-quarters of his working time working for the Company. In addition to the change in title, term and full-time status, the primary purpose of the amendments contained in the Employment Agreement as compared to the prior agreement was to provide Mr. Henderson with equity compensation in lieu of cash compensation for salary and bonus on similar terms to those contained in Mr. Howley’s employment agreement. Under the terms of the Employment Agreement, Mr. Henderson will receive $10,000 in cash to cover his employee co-premiums for health benefits and related taxes and otherwise receives options in lieu of cash salary. Mr. Henderson received a grant of options to purchase 8,500 shares of Company common stock for calendar year 2017 and 7,600 shares of Company common stock for calendar year 2018. In addition, Mr. Henderson is entitled to participate in the Company’s annual cash incentive plan with a target bonus of 6,500 shares of Company common stock for fiscal year 2017 and 5,900 shares of Company common stock for fiscal year 2018, in each case as adjusted by the percentage greater than or less than the plan would yield as compared to target incentives. The Employment Agreement was amended and restated on January 25, 2018 primarily to modify the vesting schedule for options granted as salary and bonus. See “Employment Agreements – Employment Agreements with Other Executive Officers” on pages 48-49 for further information and a more complete description of the agreement.

Recent Developments Following Fiscal Year End

On January 2, 2018, Mr. Paradie resigned from the Company for personal reasons, effective April 2, 2018. The Committee approved a severance for Mr. Paradie consistent with the provisions of his Employment Agreement if he had been terminated without cause or resigned for good reason. See “Employment Agreements – Employment Agreements with Other Executive Officers” on pages 48-49 for a description of those provisions.

The Committee also approved the amendment and restatement of Mr. Henderson’s employment agreement as disclosed above.

Impact of 2017 Short Seller Activity on TSR

Since inception, the Company has established a consistent upward trajectory in both operational growth as well as shareholder returns. As of fiscal 2017, the Company significantly outperformed the S&P 500 index over a three-year period, as well as over a five-year period. This shareholder return generation reflects the Company’s ongoing momentum, with total shareholder returns since the Company’s initial public offering of over 1,650%.

23

Our long-term performance has been excellent and has resulted in outstanding returns to stockholders – with a three-year average annual total shareholder return of 18%. Taking it out further, a five-year average annual total shareholder return of 27%, and looked at over 10-years, we have delivered an average annual total shareholder return of 27%.

During fiscal 2017, the Company experienced unusually high volatility in its stock, based in large part on an orchestrated media campaign by short sellers to reduce the price of the Company’s stock which materially impacted the one-year TSR calculation. The Company strategically determined not to respond to what it believed to be meritless allegations and instead determined to let the business and its results speak for themselves. The Company has little doubt that the short-selling pressure was responsible for the sharp decline in its stock price, as evidenced by the steady rebound.

24

Illustratively, the Company’s Calendar Year TSR was 20%, more in line with our track record over the recent 3-, 5- and 10-year TSR performance. In fact, the stock recently hit an all-time high.

It is important to recognize that part of the total return reflects the payment to stockholders of aggregate $46 and $105.85 per share in dividend payments to stockholders over the three and five-year periods, respectively. Dividends are just one example of how we create value for stockholders, though our adherence to a focused and disciplined capital allocation philosophy has led to sizeable episodic dividend payments.

Over the past three years we have experienced different business conditions and managed capital accordingly. In fiscal 2015 and 2016, we found a number of attractive acquisition opportunities that met our strategic and shareholder return criteria. In fiscal 2017, a very different environment, we found few acquisition candidates, acquiring only three add-on aerospace product lines. Our preference for capital allocation is to make accretive acquisitions or invest in existing businesses. But, highlighting our flexible value-focused strategy, when acquisitions are not available, we elect to allocate capital to return to shareholders. Accordingly, we returned about $3 billion to stockholders in fiscal 2017.

The Board commended the management team’s leadership in connection with the Company’s allocation of capital while continuing to aggressively pursue the Company’s long-term value drivers. The Committee believes that the Company’s activities in 2017 created significant value for Company stockholders, which is borne out by looking at the 2017 calendar year-end data.

Elements of the Executive Compensation Program

Equity Based Incentives

Performance-Based Stock Options

Overview

We intend that the largest portion of management’s potential earnings be based on total stockholder return. We believe that performance-based stock option grants motivate and incentivize management

25

to focus on long-term performance. Our stock option program covers management at the corporate level and our 33 operating units, for a total of approximately 180 people. Performance-based stock options reinforce the long-term goal of increasing stockholder value and yielding returns comparable to or higher than well-performing private equity funds by holding management to a minimum 10% AOP growth trajectory before any options can vest. Such structure effectively aligns the interests of stockholders and management. We only grant options that vest upon performance targets. We do not grant options that merely vest based on the passage of time.

The Committee does not make regular annual grants of options to its employees (other than to the CEO). Rather, it grants options that vest over five years in connection with hirings, promotions and the assumption of increased responsibilities. Thereafter, unless there has been an intervening five year award because of a promotion, the Company grants biennial extension awards that vest in the fourth and fifth year following the award. These grants are generally made in the third year of vesting under the initial award so that the employee always has four or five years of future option vesting in order to promote maximizing long-term value.

Stock options vest based on the achievement of specific performance-based targets. Initial options vest up to 20% annually based on the achievement of annual targets and two-year extension options vest up to 50% in the fourth fiscal year after the grant and up to 50% in the fifth year after the grant based on the achievement of performance targets. Commencing with options awarded in fiscal 2015, options awarded to Mr. Howley in fiscal 2015 will vest in the fifth fiscal year after the grant; options awarded to Mr. Howley in fiscal 2016 and 2017 will vest in the fourth fiscal year; and options awarded to Mr. Howley in fiscal 2018 and 2019 will vest in the third fiscal year.

Performance-based Option Vesting at Rigorous Targets

Option vesting is subject to rigorous performance hurdles: the minimum threshold for any option vesting requires a 10% cumulative growth in annual operating performance (AOP). For maximum vesting, the growth rate required is 17.5% for each performance period. The Committee identified this CAGR range as an appropriate driver of our management team at the base and maximum payout thresholds because it will incent them to create value for stockholders at a rate that outperforms the typical private equity model. The AOP metric focuses management on EBITDA growth, management of capital structure, cash generation, and acquisition performance, as appropriate to the different performance periods. Through these performance-based options with five year performance periods, we believe we have optimized management incentive to drive stockholder value creation over the long term and appropriately linked compensation with Company performance.

Specifically, AOP targets are set at the time of grant and represent an intrinsic share price. As described below, they are set by taking the prior year’s AOP and increasing such amount by 10% and 17.5%, respectively, to establish the minimum and maximum targets. In other words, as demonstrated in the chart on the following page, the intrinsic share price must grow at a compound annual growth rate of 10% for any vesting to even occur at all; for 100% vesting, the intrinsic share price must grow at a compound annual growth rate of 17.5%. Targets are thus robust, requiring 17.5% compound annual growth from the most recently completed year for maximum vesting. Targets were set with a 17.5% compound annual growth rate in an effort to achieve growth at or above the long-term returns of top performing private equity funds, with the hope that market growth will reflect the Company’s intrinsic growth. This is consistent with our objective of providing stockholders with returns at or above those of well-performing private equity funds. If these returns are achieved, both investors and management benefit significantly.

Targets are calculated based on a ratio of (a) the excess of (i) the product of EBITDA (as defined in the Company’s credit agreement) and an acquisition-weighted market multiple over (ii) net debt to (b) the Company’s number of diluted shares as of such date based on the treasury stock method of

26

accounting (the “operational performance per diluted share”). The targets are adjusted for dividends and share repurchases. To simplify, option targets and vesting are basically calculated as follows:

AOP, as reflected above, takes into consideration the following:

We use AOP growth (i.e., growth in intrinsic equity value) as the performance-based metric for a number of reasons:

27

Specifically, historical and future targets under the option plan, and actual performance through fiscal 2017, are set forth in the table below. Targets are set, and options vest, over five year periods. The few years in which our actual performance has far exceeded our option targets followed significant well-performing acquisitions, such as our acquisitions of McKechnie for $1.3 billion in the beginning of fiscal 2011 and of AmSafe for $750 million in the middle of fiscal 2012 (in addition to the other $382 million of acquisitions in fiscal 2011 and $118 million of acquisitions in fiscal 2012) and our four acquisitions totaling $1.6 billion in 2015.

Targets are adjusted for dividends paid to stockholders and share repurchases. The Committee believes the adjustments are appropriate and necessary to account for the early return of value to stockholders because if a portion of the investment is returned early via special dividend or return of capital, the subsequent years’ targets must be adjusted to reflect the revised capital structure and maintain the same IRR-based performance requirements. Adjustment of the targets does not make the targets any easier to achieve but rather maintains the IRR targets.

Other Option Terms

Because we view our performance on a long-term basis and the targets are set to achieve long-term compound annual and cumulative growth, if the annual performance per share exceeds the maximum target in an applicable year, such excess may be treated as having been achieved in the following two fiscal years and/or the prior two fiscal years (without duplication) if less than the full amount of options would otherwise have vested for such years. This allows management to focus on long-term value without having to make short-term decisions to maximize vesting in a particular year. We believe this feature acts similarly to long-term incentive plans that take into account performance over a multi-year period. We also believe this plan feature mitigates compensation risk, because if performance were measured in only one-year “snap-shot” increments, management could be incentivized to sacrifice longer term goals to achieve vesting in the short term.

28

In addition to vesting based on operational targets, in the event of a change in control, options become fully vested. The Company does not provide for any gross up to any payments that would be deemed to be “excess parachute payments” under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code.

The options also have an alternate market-based performance measurement, such that if, beginning in the second fiscal year following the date of grant, the price of the Company’s common stock on the NYSE exceeds two times the exercise price of the options less dividends paid since the date of grant, then, to the extent that the options did not otherwise vest in accordance with their terms, the options may vest 50% in the fourth fiscal year from the date of grant and 50% in the fifth fiscal year from the date of grant (or if such market price is achieved in the fifth year, 100% may vest in the fifth fiscal year); but vesting of the options will not accelerate as compared to their original vesting schedule.

Treatment of Options for Executives Upon Termination

Option agreements for executive officers provide that if the officer’s employment terminates by reason of death, disability, without cause, for good reason or retirement (after age 65 with 10 years of service or after age 60 and 15 years of service), vesting of the options will continue after termination generally as follows:

The option agreements for options awarded to Mr. Howley provide for continued vesting following a termination of Mr. Howley by reason of death, disability, without cause, for good reason or retirement as described in detail under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or a Change in Control – Termination Payments for W. Nicholas Howley” on pages 36-38.

2017 Grants

Options are granted generally at regularly scheduled board meetings during November through April. Because all options vest based on performance criteria and vesting occurs at the end of each fiscal year, grants for any new hire or promoted employee who would otherwise receive a grant after April in any year are deferred until November.

Options to purchase 738,974 shares of common stock were granted under the program in fiscal 2017. The number of shares subject to the 2014 stock option plan is 5,000,000, of which 4,137,011 shares remained available for granting under the plan as of September 30, 2017.

Dividends and Dividend Equivalents

Dividends

Dividend decisions, like at other companies, are a capital structure decision made by the Board. We do not have a policy of paying regular dividends. Instead, the Board regularly evaluates our capital allocation optionality and will declare a special dividend based on an assessment of availability of cash or borrowing capacity, outlook for acquisitions and other operating needs, favorable capital market conditions, and the availability of surplus under applicable law as well as certain operating performance covenants under the Company’s credit facilities.

29

Our preference for capital allocation is to make accretive acquisitions or invest in existing businesses. But, when acquisitions are not available, we elect to allocate capital to return to stockholders. Because of the constantly dynamic state of acquisition opportunities, as well as other external forces such as the health of credit markets, geo-political activity, competitive industry opportunities and pressures, these special dividends are unpredictable, episodic, and, unlike other companies, have historically been very large. Most recently, the Company paid two dividends, totaling $46 per share, in fiscal 2017; however, the Company paid no dividends in fiscal 2015 and 2016. The Company’s last dividend paid prior to 2017 was a $25 per share dividend in 2014.

Dividend decisions are made exclusive of compensatory impact. And compensation decisions are made without regard to the possibility of dividend equivalent payments. However, due to the unique structure of our executive compensation program, which significantly underpays relative to peers short term but provides extraordinary upside in the long term, the Committee believes our use of DEPs are critical to the understanding of what motivates our executive team.

Dividend Equivalent Payments (DEPs)

In order to closely align management and stockholder interests in all aspects of the Company’s operations and capital structure, we have dividend equivalent plans that provide optionholders the right to receive dividend equivalent payments (DEPs) if the Board declares a dividend on the Company’s common stock. Maintaining an even playing field between constituencies is important to and consistent with the Company’s private equity compensation philosophy. As such, the Committee strongly believes that absent the DEPs, the optionholders are at a clear disadvantage to stockholders, which would incentivize the exercise and sale (e.g., to satisfy tax obligations) of vested options and could undermine the alignment of their interests with those of stockholders.

It is important to note that because our executives believe that our options are a good long-term investment, many of them hold options for a long period of time, maintaining alignment with stockholders. For example, almost half of the DEPs paid to Mr. Howley in 2017 were paid on vested options that been held for over five years.

Failure to align management and stockholders could create incentives for management to deploy cash flow and utilize borrowing capacity in a manner other than the return of capital in the form of extraordinary dividends, which might not be in the best interests of stockholders. Further, management may be incentivized to seek short-term market gains rather than focusing on long-term equity value and stockholder returns. Dividend equivalents align management with the stockholders to permit the best allocation of capital resources and incentivize long-term share value growth without a hyper focus on short term stock price fluctuations.

Importantly, pursuant to the dividend equivalent plans, employees receive DEPs on options (i) that have vested based on rigorous performance criteria, and (ii) that the optionholder has chosen not to exercise even though vested. Optionholders who hold vested stock options at the time a dividend is paid will receive a cash DEP equal to the amount that he or she would otherwise have been entitled to receive had his or her vested stock option been exercised immediately prior to payment of the dividend. Optionholders who hold unvested stock options will receive a cash DEP equal to the amount he or she would otherwise have been entitled to receive had his or her unvested stock option been vested and exercised immediately prior to payment of the dividend, but only if and when such stock option vests pursuant to its terms. We believe that we have structured DEPs under the Company’s dividend equivalent plans such that they are not subject to any excise tax under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Certain investors and proxy advisory firms have raised the issue as to whether the Company should pay dividend equivalents only upon an exercise of the options; however, we believe that tying payment of the dividend equivalents to the exercise of an option would result in excise taxes under Section 409A.

30

Restricted Stock

In order to attract Messrs. Paradie and Stein to the Company, the Company granted them shares of restricted stock which are subject to time based vesting and are forfeited if their employment is terminated. The shares “vest” (i.e., the restrictions on forfeiture of the shares will lapse) equally over approximately a three-year period. Mr. Paradie is no longer serving as Chief Financial Officer of the Company; his employment terminates effective April 2, 2018 and the remaining one-third of his restricted stock will thereupon be forfeited. The restricted stock was granted under the 2006 stock incentive plan. The 2014 stock option plan does not include the ability to issue restricted stock.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

We require management to maintain a significant personal investment in the Company. Therefore, during their employment, all of the Company’s existing optionholders are required to maintain ownership of a minimum value of stock or vested options. In general, the holding requirements, which are specific for each individual, require optionholders to retain shares or in-the-money vested options with significant value. Specifically, the retention requirements for named executive officers, including the amounts that must be retained in stock and the value of stock actually held, are set forth below.

New optionholders have five years to meet their holding requirements. If a holding requirement has been met but is no longer met because of a decline in value of the Company’s common stock, the optionholder will have three years to achieve compliance with the holding requirement.

No director or employee is permitted to pledge Company stock or engage in short sales or other hedging transactions related to Company stock.

Base Salary

Executive Officers

Our philosophy is to pay base salaries at a level pegged at the lower end of similarly situated companies, preferring instead weight the compensation of officers through performance-based equity. Specifically, we aim to pay cash compensation to most executives at approximately the 25 ^th to 35 ^th percentile of the Company’s peers. Cash compensation for executive officers in fiscal 2017 was determined with reference to the executives’ experience, the Company’s past practice, individual performance and the survey described below.

Consistent with the factors annually considered by the Committee, the Committee determined that, effective January 1, 2017, the base salaries of Messrs. Paradie, Stein and Iversen should be $525,000, $700,000 and $500,000 per year, respectively. As discussed elsewhere in this proxy statement, Mr. Howley and Mr. Henderson do not receive a salary pursuant to the terms of their respective employment agreements. The only cash compensation each is entitled to is in the amount of $7,000 and $10,000, respectively, and is for health insurance and related taxes. The remaining compensation of each is paid in performance-based stock options.

31

To put this in context, 100% of compensation of two of the top executives with the ability to influence the achievement of targets, have been incentivized purely through rigorous incentives that will drive value for stockholders. The Committee is confident this structure will promote the best alignment possible with our stockholders by holding them to rigorous operational achievements to vest.

More specifically, and again in accordance with his employment agreement, the Committee granted Mr. Henderson options to purchase 8,500 shares. Mr. Howley received options to purchase 18,026 shares, calculated in accordance with his employment agreement. See “Employment Agreements – Employment Agreements with Other Named Executive Officers” and “– Employment Agreement with Mr. Howley, Chief Executive Officer” on pages 45-47 for more details.

Use of Independent Compensation Consultant; Peer Considerations

In May 2016 the Committee engaged Veritas Executive Compensation Consultants to do a survey of total standard compensation components for the Company’s chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and an executive vice president. In doing so we specifically asked that they exclude DEPs for two reasons—first, because we think of DEPs more as putting the executive in the place of the stockholder without requiring an exercise (and typically accompanying sale to, for example, offset taxes) and second, because including episodic DEPs in a compensation exercise is not going to be as insightful as the anomalies of DEPs will distort any peer analysis.

Veritas used a peer group based on enterprise value at the Committee’s prior direction because we manage our business based on the enterprise value and EBITDA growth. The Committee previously rejected a revenue peer group as being not comparable with the Company because the Company’s market capitalization and enterprise value far exceeded those of the potential revenue-based peers. Companies were evaluated for inclusion in the peer group based on satisfying several of the following criteria: having an enterprise value within 1/3x—3x of the Company’s enterprise value, strong financial health, listing the Company as a peer, being a prevalent industry peer, having a positive standing among shareholders and being in the same Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) industry group and sub-industry group as the Company. For decisions affecting fiscal 2017, the Company used as its peer group the following companies:

32

Annual Incentives

Executive officers participate in an annual incentive program. The annual incentives are paid in cash to the executive officers other than Messrs. Howley and Henderson (who receive their annual incentives in performance-based options). Target incentive amounts are based on a percentage of the officer’s salary pursuant to their respective employment agreements. The award structure, pay out contingencies and mechanics are fully transparent and can be easily ascertained by a third party following the calculations set forth in the proxy. Importantly, this process is non-discretionary and based on an objective assessment of the Company’s financial performance as follows:

Committee Discretion

The Committee retained the authority to increase or decrease the award by up to 20%, based on assessment of individual performance, including without limitation, (1) degree of difficulty of the job and the achievement of metrics and the individual’s job effectiveness given the aerospace and capital market environment, operating conditions and the level of flexibility/responsiveness required; (2) the effectiveness of the Company’s three value drives of price, productivity and new business; (3) a pattern of clear, open, honest and regular communication with the Board and investors, as applicable; (4) effective succession planning and organizational development; (5) support, maintenance and regular evaluation of the effectiveness of the Company’s long term value focused strategy; or (6) other factors. Final assessment of results will be determined following completion of the fiscal year and will be based on audited financial results.

2017 Targets and Actual Awards

In fiscal 2017, the non-discretionary incentive calculation of EBITDA As Defined and AOP, with each component weighted equally, yielded 106% of the target. The Company’s EBITDA As Defined was $1,711 million and the midpoint of the Company’s initial guidance, as adjusted by the incremental EBITDA As Defined guidance attributable to the Company’s acquisitions was $1,688 million. The Company’s actual AOP was $130.60 as compared to the AOP target of $117.97. The $117.97 target represented growth of 17.5% from the fiscal 2016 Annual Operational Performance per Diluted Share, as adjusted for dividends paid in fiscal 2017. The increase in the actual Annual Operational Performance per Diluted Share over the target was primarily attributable to the dividend payment.

33

For fiscal 2017, the target incentives for the named executive officers other than Messrs. Howley and Henderson were set at 80%, 100% and 80% of their respective annual salaries. The target incentives (in dollars), the calculated incentive based on the plan as described above, and the actual amount awarded are set forth in the table below.

Mr. Henderson is paid an annual incentive in options, as calculated in his employment agreement. His target annual incentive was options to purchase 7,600 shares. His calculated incentive was 8,064 shares and he was awarded 8,064 shares.

Mr. Howley’s target incentive value was set at 125% of his annual salary or, in dollars $1,523,750 and his calculated incentive value was $1,615,175. The Committee determined that Mr. Howley should be awarded a bonus reflecting a value of $1,750,000 for fiscal 2017, or 108% of his calculated incentive. The Committee noted that, under Mr. Howley’s leadership, the performance of the Company was good, the Company managed its balance sheet well in terms of capital allocation and that Mr. Howley prepared the Company well for eventual CEO succession. Mr. Howley receives his annual incentive by means of a grant of options in lieu of cash. See “Employment Agreements – Employment Agreement with Mr. Howley, Chief Executive Officer” on pages 41-45 for more details.

Perquisites

The Company provided no perquisites in 2017.

Employment Agreements

For a description of existing employment agreements, see “Employment Agreements” below.

Severance

All of the Company’s executive officers have severance provisions in their employment agreements, as described below.

Overview of Say-On-Pay Vote History & Advisory Firm Recommendation Effect

In the initial years of Say-On-Pay (SOP), between 2011-2014, the Company maintained its existing historical practice of biennial option grants. This grant pattern resulted in large reported compensation in alternating years, which in turn drove huge peaks and valleys in our SOP voting record with approximately 98%, 56%, 97% and 65%, respectively, of the votes cast were voted in support of the Say on Pay proposal. These gyrations occurred despite the Company’s consistent performance and the nearly identical nature of the compensation program.

In addition, proxy advisory firms’ adverse recommendations against SOP in the grant years had impact on our shareholders. For example, looking at 2011 vs. 2012, the appearance of a large income increase from the biennial grants and concern over 280G practices (which were not uncommon prior to SOP) caused proxy advisory firms to recommend against the 2012 SOP proposal. During subsequent engagement with holders representing a majority of our shares, we learned that portfolio managers and analysts who make the investment decisions were nearly unanimously in favor of the Company’s compensation practices. Investor stewardship representatives were also generally in favor of the

34

Company’s compensation practices, although representatives at a few stockholders found fault with the 280G clause, which was eliminated after the 2012 vote, and suggested enhanced disclosure to help shareholders get comfortable with the operations of our incentive compensation program. As we moved through ensuing years, the same pattern of grants, adverse recommendations, and communications continued and we eventually concluded a change was needed to break this pattern.

Following subsequent stockholder outreach efforts in 2014, the Company bolstered the alignment of the interests of management and stockholders by:

Since the change from biennial to annual grants for Mr. Howley, the Company has enjoyed overwhelming stockholder support of its Say-On-Pay in each of 2015, 2016, and 2017. However, the Company has continued to engage with stockholders during those regarding the Company’s compensation and other issues of importance to stockholders.

The Company has not made significant changes to its compensation practices since the 2015 annual shareholder meeting, other than the transition of our Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman to all equity compensation. However, we recognize that the $46 in dividends paid in fiscal 2017 may appear as outsized compensation because it is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table and thus mis-represents an uptick in compensation. As has been discussed above, the Committee considers the ability of optionholders to share in the benefits of value creation right alongside our stockholders, as essentially making them whole for keeping fully vested options.

In an effort to begin mitigating any such misconceptions that may be triggered principally due to our dividend declaration practices and dividend equivalent plans – and not our compensation policy – we have already reviewed our compensation plan with governance specialists, portfolio managers and analysts from eight shareholders, representing over 40% of shares outstanding. The vast majority of those representatives are in favor of our heavily performance based compensation system, which is 100% performance based for both our CEO, Mr. Howley and our Vice Chairman, Mr. Henderson.

35

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with Company management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis set forth above. Based on the review and discussions noted above, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Compensation Committee

Michael Graff, Chairman

Mervin Dunn

Sean Hennessy

Robert Small

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

Messrs. Graff, Dunn, Hennessy and Small comprise the Compensation Committee. There are no Compensation Committee interlocks.

Compensation Risk

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and evaluated the incentive compensation policies and practices that cover all employees. On the basis of that review, the Company does not believe that its compensation policies and practices pose risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

36

Summary Compensation Table

The following information is set forth with respect to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and the Company’s other three most highly compensated executive officers, each of whom was serving as an executive officer at September 30, 2017 (the “named executive officers”).

37

Grants of Plan Based Awards in Last Fiscal Year

The following table sets forth information concerning options granted in fiscal 2017 to the named executive officers.

38

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End

The following table sets forth information concerning unexercised options and restricted stock subject to forfeiture as of September 30, 2017 with respect to the named executive officers.