Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2014

Commission File Number 0-7087

Astronics Corporation

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

130 Commerce Way, East Aurora, N.Y. 14052

(Address of principal executive office)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (716) 805-1599

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

$.01 par value Common Stock; $.01 par value Class B Stock

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer”, an “accelerated filer”, a “non-accelerated filer” and a “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of January 31, 2015, 21,957,218 shares were outstanding, consisting of 16,652,188 shares of Common Stock $.01 Par Value and 5,305,030 shares of Class B Stock $.01 Par Value. The aggregate market value, as of the last business day of the Company’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, of the shares of Common Stock and Class B Stock of Astronics Corporation held by non-affiliates was $890,526,577 (assuming conversion of all of the outstanding Class B Stock into Common Stock and assuming the affiliates of the Registrant to be its directors, executive officers and persons known to the Registrant to beneficially own more than 10% of the outstanding capital stock of the Corporation).

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held June 4, 2015 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

ASTRONICS CORPORATION

Index to Annual Report

on Form 10-K

Year Ended December 31, 2014

2

Table of Contents

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Information included or incorporated by reference in this report that does not consist of historical facts, including statements accompanied by or containing words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “believes,” “expects,” “expected,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “approximate,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “outlook,” “forecast,” “anticipates,” “presume” and “assume,” are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to several factors, risks and uncertainties, the impact or occurrence of which could cause actual results to differ materially from the expected results described in the forward-looking statements. Certain of these factors, risks and uncertainties are discussed in the sections of this report entitled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” New factors, risks and uncertainties may emerge from time to time that may affect the forward-looking statements made herein. Given these factors, risks and uncertainties, investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements as predictive of future results. We disclaim any obligation to update the forward-looking statements made in this report.

3

Table of Contents

PART I

Astronics Corporation (“Astronics” or the “Company”) is a leading supplier of products to the global aerospace, defense, consumer electronics and semi-conductor industries. Our products include advanced, high-performance lighting and safety systems, electrical power generation and distribution systems, aircraft structures, avionics products and automatic test systems.

We have operations in the United States, Canada and France. We design and build our products through our wholly owned subsidiaries Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp. (“AES”); Astronics AeroSat Corporation (“AeroSat”); Ballard Technology, Inc. (“Ballard”); DME Corporation (“DME”); Luminescent Systems, Inc. (“LSI”); Luminescent Systems Canada, Inc. (“LSI Canada”); Max-Viz, Inc. (“Max-Viz”); Peco, Inc. (“Peco”); PGA Electronic s.a. (“PGA”); Astronics Test Systems, Inc. and Armstrong Aerospace, Inc. (“Armstrong”). We have two reportable segments, Aerospace and Test Systems.

Recent Acquisitions

On July 18, 2013, Astronics acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of Peco. Peco designs and manufactures highly engineered commercial aerospace interior components and systems for the aerospace industry. Peco is included in our Aerospace segment.

On October 1, 2013, Astronics acquired certain assets and liabilities from AeroSat Corporation and related entities, a manufacturer of fuselage and tail-mounted antenna systems for commercial transport, business jet, and military aircraft. AeroSat is included in our Aerospace segment.

On December 5, 2013, Astronics acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of PGA. The purchase price was paid with a combination of cash and Astronics’ stock. PGA designs and manufactures seat motion and lighting systems primarily for business and first class aircraft seats and is Europe’s leading provider of in-flight entertainment/communication systems as well as cabin management systems for private aircraft. PGA is included in our Aerospace segment.

On February 28, 2014, Astronics acquired, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Astronics Test Systems, Inc. (“ATS”), certain assets and liabilities of EADS North America’s Test and Services division, located in Irvine, California. ATS is a leading provider of highly engineered automatic test systems, subsystems and instruments for semi-conductor and consumer electronics products to both the commercial and defense industries. ATS is included in our Test Systems segment.

On January 14, 2015, the Company acquired all of the outstanding stock of Armstrong, located in Itasca, Illinois. Armstrong is a leading provider of engineering, design and certification solutions for commercial aircraft, specializing in connectivity, in-flight entertainment, and electrical power systems. Armstrong will be included in our Aerospace segment.

Products and Customers

Our Aerospace segment designs and manufactures products for the global aerospace industry. Product lines include lighting and safety systems, electrical power generation, distribution and motions systems, aircraft structures, avionics products and other products. Our Aerospace customers are the airframe manufacturers (OEM’s) that build aircraft for the commercial, military and general aviation markets, suppliers to those OEM’s, aircraft operators such as airlines and branches of the U.S. Department of Defense as well as the Federal Aviation Administration and airport operators. During 2014, this segment’s sales were divided 80% to the commercial transport market, 9% to the military aircraft market, 8% to the business jet market and 3% to other markets. Most of this segment’s sales are a result of contracts or purchase orders received from customers, placed on a day-to-day basis or for single year procurements rather than long-term multi-year contract commitments. On occasion, the Company does receive contractual commitments or blanket purchase orders from our customers covering multiple-year deliveries of hardware to our customers.

Our Test Systems segment designs, develops, manufactures and maintains automatic test systems that support the semiconductor, aerospace, communications and weapons test systems as well as training and simulation devices for both commercial and military applications. In the Test Systems Segment, Astronics’ products are sold to a global customer base including OEMs and prime government contractors for both consumer electronics and military products. During 2014, this segment’s sales were divided 79% to the commercial electronics market and 21% to the military test market. During 2013, and before the acquisition of ATS in February 2014, this segment’s sales were all to the military market.

4

Table of Contents

Sales by segment, geographic region, major customer and foreign operations are provided in Note 18 of Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data in this report.

We have a significant concentration of business with three major customers, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Panasonic Avionics Corporation (“Panasonic”) and The Boeing Company (“Boeing”). Sales to Apple accounted for 17.9% of sales in 2014. Accounts receivable from this customer at December 31, 2014 were $4.3 million. Sales to Panasonic accounted for 17.7% of sales in 2014, 29.6% of sales in 2013 and 38.0% of sales in 2012. Accounts receivable from this customer at December 31, 2014 and 2013 were $21.8 million and $14.1 million, respectively. Sales to Boeing accounted for 14.1% of sales in 2014, 14.5% of sales in 2013 and 5.5% of sales in 2012. Accounts receivable from this customer at December 31, 2014 and 2013 were $6.9 million and $6.5 million, respectively.

Strategy

Our strategy is to increase our value by developing technologies and capabilities either internally or through acquisition, and using those capabilities to provide innovative solutions to the aerospace and defense, consumer electronics, semi-conductor and other markets where our technology can be beneficial.

Practices as to Maintaining Working Capital

Liquidity is discussed in Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, in the Liquidity section of this report.

Competitive Conditions

We experience considerable competition in the market sectors we serve, principally with respect to product performance and price, from various competitors, many of which are substantially larger and have greater resources. Success in the markets we serve depends upon product innovation, customer support, responsiveness and cost management. We continue to invest in developing the technologies and engineering support critical to competing in our markets.

Government Contracts

All U.S. government contracts, including subcontracts where the U.S. government is the ultimate customer, may be subject to termination at the election of the government. Our revenue stream relies on military spending. Approximately 12% of our consolidated sales were made to the military aircraft and military test systems markets combined.

Raw Materials

Materials, supplies and components are purchased from numerous sources. We believe that the loss of any one source, although potentially disruptive in the short-term, would not materially affect our operations in the long-term.

Seasonality

Our business is typically not seasonal.

Backlog

At December 31, 2014, our backlog was $370.7 million. At December 31, 2013, our backlog was $214.2 million. Backlog in the Aerospace segment was $223.7 million at December 31, 2014, of which $205.5 million is expected to be realized in 2015. Backlog in the Test Systems segment was $147.0 million at December 31, 2014, of which $116.3 million is expected to be realized in 2015.

Patents

We have a number of patents. While the aggregate protection of these patents is of value, our only material business that is dependent upon the protection afforded by these patents is our cabin power distribution products. Our patents and patent applications relate to electroluminescence, instrument panels, keyboard technology and a broad patent covering the cabin power distribution technology. We regard our expertise and techniques as proprietary and rely upon trade secret laws and contractual arrangements to protect our rights. We have trademark protection in major markets.

Research, Development and Engineering Activities

We are engaged in a variety of engineering and design activities as well as basic research and development activities directed to the substantial improvement or new application of our existing technologies. These costs are expensed when incurred and included in cost of sales. Research, development and engineering costs amounted to approximately $76.7 million in 2014, $52.8 million in 2013 and $44.9 million in 2012.

5

Table of Contents

Employees

We employed approximately 2,000 employees at December 31, 2014. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. Except for the hourly production workforce at Peco, none of our employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements.

Stock Distribution

On August 21, 2014, the Company announced a one-for-five distribution of Class B Stock to holders of both Common and Class B Stock. Stockholders received one share of Class B Stock for every five shares of Common and Class B Stock held on the record date of September 5, 2014. Fractional shares were paid in cash. All share quantities, share prices and per share data reported throughout this report have been adjusted to reflect the impact of this distribution.

Available information

We file our financial information and other materials as electronically required with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These materials can be accessed electronically via the Internet at www.sec.gov. Such materials and other information about the Company are also available through our website at www.astronics.com.

The loss of Apple, Panasonic or Boeing as major customers or a significant reduction in sales to any or all of those three customers would reduce our sales and earnings. In 2014, we had a concentration of sales to Apple, Panasonic and Boeing representing approximately 17.9%, 17.7% and 14.1% of our sales, respectively. The loss of one or all of these customers or a significant reduction in sales to them would significantly reduce our sales and earnings.

The amount of debt we have outstanding, as well as any debt we may incur in the future, could have an adverse effect on our operational and financial flexibility. As of December 31, 2014, we had approximately $183.0 million of debt outstanding, of which $180.2 million is long-term debt. Changes to our level of debt subsequent to December 31, 2014 could have significant consequences to our business, including the following:

We are subject to debt covenant restrictions. Our credit facility contains several financial and other restrictive covenants. A significant decline in our operating income could cause us to violate our covenants. A covenant violation would require a waiver by the lenders or an alternative financing arrangement be achieved. This could result in our being unable to borrow under our bank credit facility or being obliged to refinance and renegotiate the terms of our bank indebtedness. Historically both choices have been available to us, however, it is difficult to predict the availability of these options in the future.

Our future operating results could be impacted by estimates used to calculate impairment losses on long term assets. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make significant and subjective estimates and assumptions that may affect the reported amounts of long term assets in the financial statements. These estimates are integral in the determination of whether a potential impairment loss exists as well as the calculation of that loss. Actual future results could differ from those estimates.

A write-off of all or part of our goodwill or other intangible assets could adversely affect our operating results and net worth. At December 31, 2014, goodwill and purchased intangible assets were approximately 17.8% and 16.9% of our total assets respectively. Our goodwill and other intangible assets may increase in the future since our strategy includes growing through acquisitions. We may have to write off all or part of our goodwill or purchased intangible assets if their value becomes impaired. Although this write-off would be a non-cash charge, it could reduce our earnings and net worth significantly.

The markets we serve are cyclical and sensitive to domestic and foreign economic conditions and events, which may cause our operating results to fluctuate. In our Aerospace segment, demand by the business jet markets for our products is dependent upon

6

Table of Contents

several factors, including capital investment, product innovations, economic growth and wealth creation, and technology upgrades. In addition, the commercial airline industry is highly cyclical and sensitive to fuel price increases, labor disputes, global economic conditions, availability of capital to fund new aircraft purchases and upgrades of existing aircraft and passenger demand. A change in any of these factors could result in a reduction in the amount of air travel and the ability of airlines to invest in new aircraft or to upgrade existing aircraft. These factors would reduce orders for new aircraft and would likely reduce airlines’ spending for cabin upgrades for which we supply products, thus reducing our sales and profits. A reduction in air travel may also result in our commercial airline customers being unable to pay our invoices on a timely basis or not at all.

We are a supplier on various new aircraft programs just entering or expected to begin production in the future. As with any new program, there is risk as to whether the aircraft or program will be successful and accepted by the market. As is customary for our business, we purchase inventory and invest in specific capital equipment to support our production requirements generally based on delivery schedules provided by our customer. If a program or aircraft is not successful we may have to write off all or a part of the inventory, accounts receivable and capital equipment related to the program. A write off of these assets could result in a significant reduction of earnings and cause covenant violations relating to our debt agreements. This could result in our being unable to borrow additional funds under our bank credit facility or being obliged to refinance or renegotiate the terms of our bank indebtedness.

In our Test Systems segment, the market for our products is concentrated with a limited number of significant customers accounting for a substantial portion of the purchases of test equipment. In 2014, our largest customer accounted for 17.9% of our consolidated revenue. In any one reporting period, a single customer or several customers may contribute an even larger percentage of our consolidated net revenues. In addition, our ability to increase sales will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain orders from current or new significant customers. The opportunities to obtain orders from these customers may be limited, which may impair our ability to grow revenues. We expect that sales of our Test Systems products will continue to be concentrated with a limited number of significant customers for the foreseeable future. Additionally, demand for some of our test products is dependent upon government funding levels for our products, our ability to compete successfully for those contracts and our ability to develop products to satisfy the demands of our customers.

Our products are sold in highly competitive markets. Some of our competitors are larger, more diversified corporations and have greater financial, marketing, production and research and development resources. As a result, they may be better able to withstand the effects of periodic economic downturns. Our operations and financial performance will be negatively impacted if our competitors:

We believe that the principal points of competition in our markets are product quality, price, design and engineering capabilities, product development, conformity to customer specifications, quality of support after the sale, timeliness of delivery and effectiveness of the distribution organization. Maintaining and improving our competitive position will require continued investment in manufacturing, engineering, quality standards, marketing, customer service and support and our distribution networks. If we do not maintain sufficient resources to make these investments, or are not successful in maintaining our competitive position, our operations and financial performance will suffer.

Our future success depends to a significant degree upon the continued contributions of our management team and technical personnel. The loss of members of our management team could have a material and adverse effect on our business. In addition, competition for qualified technical personnel in our industry is intense, and we believe that our future growth and success will depend on our ability to attract, train and retain such personnel.

Future terror attacks, war, or other civil disturbances could negatively impact our business. Continued terror attacks, war or other disturbances could lead to further economic instability and decreases in demand for our products, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. Terrorist attacks world-wide have caused instability from time to time in global financial markets and the aviation industry. The long-term effects of terrorist attacks on us are unknown. These attacks and the U.S. government’s continued efforts against terrorist organizations may lead to additional armed hostilities or to further acts of terrorism and civil disturbance in the U.S. or elsewhere, which may further contribute to economic instability.

Our business operations may be adversely affected by information systems interruptions or intrusions. We are dependent on various information technologies throughout our company to administer, store and support multiple business activities. Disruptions or cyber security attacks such as unauthorized access, malicious software and other intrusions may lead to exposure of proprietary and confidential information as well as potential data corruption. Any intrusion may cause operational stoppages, diminished competitive advantages through reputational damages and increased operational costs.

Our inability to adequately enforce and protect our intellectual property or defend against assertions of infringement could prevent or restrict our ability to compete. We rely on patents, trademarks and proprietary knowledge and technology, both internally developed and acquired, in order to maintain a competitive advantage. Our inability to defend against the unauthorized use of these rights and assets could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Litigation may be necessary to protect our intellectual property rights or defend against claims of infringement. This litigation could result in significant costs and divert our management’s focus away from operations.

7

Table of Contents

If we are unable to adapt to technological change, demand for our products may be reduced. The technologies related to our products have undergone, and in the future may undergo, significant changes. To succeed in the future, we will need to continue to design, develop, manufacture, assemble, test, market and support new products and enhancements on a timely and cost effective basis. Our competitors may develop technologies and products that are more effective than those we develop or that render our technology and products obsolete or uncompetitive. Furthermore, our products could become unmarketable if new industry standards emerge. We may have to modify our products significantly in the future to remain competitive, and new products we introduce may not be accepted by our customers.

Our new product development efforts may not be successful, which would result in a reduction in our sales and earnings. We may experience difficulties that could delay or prevent the successful development of new products or product enhancements, and new products or product enhancements may not be accepted by our customers. In addition, the development expenses we incur may exceed our cost estimates, and new products we develop may not generate sales sufficient to offset our costs. If any of these events occur, our sales and profits could be adversely affected.

We depend on government contracts and subcontracts with defense prime contractors and sub-contractors that may not be fully funded, may be terminated, or may be awarded to our competitors. The failure to be awarded these contracts, the failure to receive funding or the termination of one or more of these contracts could reduce our sales. Sales to the U.S. government and its prime contractors and subcontractors represent a significant portion of our business. The funding of these programs is generally subject to annual congressional appropriations, and congressional priorities are subject to change. In addition, government expenditures for defense programs may decline or these defense programs may be terminated. A decline in governmental expenditures or the termination of existing contracts may result in a reduction in the volume of contracts awarded to us. We have resources applied to specific government contracts and if any of those contracts were terminated, we may incur substantial costs redeploying those resources.

If our subcontractors or suppliers fail to perform their contractual obligations, our prime contract performance and our ability to obtain future business could be materially and adversely impacted. Many of our contracts involve subcontracts with other companies upon which we rely to perform a portion of the services we must provide to our customers. There is a risk that we may have disputes with our subcontractors, including disputes regarding the quality and timeliness of work performed by the subcontractor or customer concerns about the subcontractor. Failure by our subcontractors to satisfactorily provide on a timely basis the agreed-upon supplies or perform the agreed-upon services may materially and adversely impact our ability to perform our obligations with our customer. Subcontractor performance deficiencies could result in a customer terminating our contract for default. A default termination could expose us to liability and substantially impair our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. In addition, a delay in our ability to obtain components and equipment parts from our suppliers may affect our ability to meet our customers’ needs and may have an adverse effect upon our profitability.

Our results of operations are affected by our fixed-price contracts, which could subject us to losses in the event that we have cost overruns. For the year ended December 31, 2014, fixed-price contracts represented almost all of the Company’s sales. On fixed-price contracts, we agree to perform the scope of work specified in the contract for a predetermined price. Depending on the fixed price negotiated, these contacts may provide us with an opportunity to achieve higher profits based on the relationship between our costs and the contract’s fixed price. However, we bear the risk that increased or unexpected costs may reduce our profit.

Some of our contracts contain late delivery penalties. Failure to deliver in a timely manner due to supplier problems, development schedule slides, manufacturing difficulties, or similar schedule related events could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The failure of our products may damage our reputation, necessitate a product recall or result in claims against us that exceed our insurance coverage, thereby requiring us to pay significant damages. Defects in the design and manufacture of our products may necessitate a product recall. We include complex system design and components in our products that could contain errors or defects, particularly when we incorporate new technology into our products. If any of our products are defective, we could be required to redesign or recall those products or pay substantial damages or warranty claims. Such an event could result in significant expenses, disrupt sales and affect our reputation and that of our products. We are also exposed to product liability claims. We carry aircraft and non-aircraft product liability insurance consistent with industry norms. However, this insurance coverage may not be sufficient to fully cover the payment of any potential claim. A product recall or a product liability claim not covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in discount rates and other estimates could affect our future earnings and equity. Our goodwill impairment evaluations are determined using valuations that involve several assumptions, including discount rates, cash flow estimates, growth rates and terminal values. Certain of these assumptions, particularly the discount rate, are based on market conditions and are outside of our control. Changes in these assumptions could affect our future earnings and equity.

8

Table of Contents

Additionally, pension obligations and the related costs are determined using actual results and actuarial valuations that involve several assumptions. The most critical assumption is the discount rate. Other assumptions include mortality, salary increases and retirement age. The discount rate assumptions are based on current market conditions and are outside of our control. Changes in these assumptions could affect our future earnings and equity.

We are subject to financing and interest rate exposure risks that could adversely affect our business, liquidity and operating results. Changes in the availability, terms and cost of capital, and increases in interest rates could cause our cost of doing business to increase and place us at a competitive disadvantage. At December 31, 2014, approximately 10% of our debt was at fixed interest rates with the remaining percentage subject to variable interest rates.

Contracting in the defense industry is subject to significant regulation, including rules related to bidding, billing and accounting kickbacks and false claims, and any non-compliance could subject us to fines and penalties or possible debarment. Like all government contractors, we are subject to risks associated with this contracting. These risks include the potential for substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties. These fines and penalties could be imposed for failing to follow procurement integrity and bidding rules, employing improper billing practices or otherwise failing to follow cost accounting standards, receiving or paying kickbacks or filing false claims. We have been, and expect to continue to be, subjected to audits and investigations by government agencies. The failure to comply with the terms of our government contracts could harm our business reputation. It could also result in suspension or debarment from future government contracts.

If we fail to meet expectations of securities analysts or investors due to fluctuations in our revenue or operating results, our stock price could decline significantly. Our revenue and earnings may fluctuate from quarter to quarter due to a number of factors, including delays or cancellations of programs. It is likely that in some future quarters our operating results may fall below the expectations of securities analysts or investors. In this event, the trading price of our stock could decline significantly.

Our operations in foreign countries expose us to political and currency risks and adverse changes in local legal and regulatory environments. In 2014, approximately 9.7% of our sales were made by our subsidiaries in France and Canada. Our financial results may be adversely affected by fluctuations in foreign currencies and by the translation of the financial statements of our foreign subsidiaries from local currencies into U.S. dollars. We expect international operations and export sales to continue to contribute to our earnings for the foreseeable future. Both the sales from international operations and export sales are subject in varying degrees to risks inherent in doing business outside of the U.S. Such risks include the possibility of unfavorable circumstances arising from host country laws or regulations, changes in tariff and trade barriers and import or export licensing requirements, and political or economic reprioritization, insurrection, civil disturbance or war.

Government regulations could limit our ability to sell our products outside the United States and could otherwise adversely affect our business. Certain of our sales are subject to compliance with U.S. export regulations. Our failure to obtain, or fully adhere to the limitations contained in, the requisite licenses, meet registration standards or comply with other government export regulations would hinder our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our products outside the U.S. Compliance with these government regulations may also subject us to additional fees and operating costs. The absence of comparable restrictions on competitors in other countries may adversely affect our competitive position. In order to sell our products in European Union countries, we must satisfy certain technical requirements. If we are unable to comply with those requirements with respect to a significant quantity of our products, our sales in Europe would be restricted. Doing business internationally also subjects us to numerous U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, including regulations relating to import-export control, technology transfer restrictions, foreign corrupt practices and anti-boycott provisions. Our failure, or failure by an authorized agent or representative that is attributable to us, to comply with these laws and regulations could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities and could, in the extreme case, result in monetary penalties, suspension or debarment from government contracts or suspension of our export privileges, which would have a material adverse effect on us.

Our stock price is volatile. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our stock price ranged from a low of $42.11 to a high of $59.97. The price of our common stock has been and likely will continue to be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a number of events and factors, such as:

9

Table of Contents

In addition, the stock market in general, and the market prices for companies in the aerospace industry in particular, have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that often have been unrelated to the operating performance of the companies affected by these fluctuations. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance.

We may incur losses and liabilities as a result of our acquisition strategy. Growth by acquisition involves risks that could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results, including:

In addition, any acquisition, once successfully integrated, could negatively impact our financial performance if it does not perform as planned, does not increase earnings, or does not prove otherwise to be beneficial to us.

We currently are involved or may become involved in the future, in legal proceedings that, if adversely adjudicated or settled, could materially impact our financial condition. As an aerospace company, we may become a party to litigation in the ordinary course of our business, including, among others, matters alleging product liability, warranty claims, breach of commercial or government contract or other legal actions. In general, litigation claims can be expensive and time consuming to bring or defend against and could result in settlements or damages that could significantly impact results of operations and financial condition.

We are a defendant in an action filed in the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany (Lufthansa Technik AG v. Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems Corp.) relating to an allegation of patent infringement. On December 29, 2010, Lufthansa Technik AG (“Lufthansa”) filed a Statement of Claim in the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany. Lufthansa’s claim asserts that our subsidiary, Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp. (“AES”) sold, marketed and brought into use in Germany a power supply system which infringes upon a German patent held by Lufthansa. The relief sought by Lufthansa includes requiring AES to stop selling and marketing the allegedly infringing power supply system, a recall of allegedly infringing products sold to commercial customers since November 26, 2003 and compensation for damages. The claim does not specify an estimate of damages and a damages claim will be made by Lufthansa only if it receives a favorable ruling on the determination of infringement.

On February 6, 2015, the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany rendered its decision that the patent was infringed. The judgment does not require AES to recall products which are already installed in aircraft or have been sold to other end users. However, if Lufthansa provides the required bank guarantees specified in the decision, the Company may be required to offer a recall of products which are in the distribution channels in Germany, and provide certain financial information regarding sales of the infringing product to enable Lufthansa to make an estimate of requested damages. No such bank guarantees have been issued to date.

The Company expects to appeal and believes it has valid defenses to refute the decision. The appeal process is estimated to extend up to two years. As a result, we do not currently have sufficient information to provide an estimate of AES’s potential exposure related to this matter. As loss exposure is neither probable nor estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to this litigation as of December 31, 2014.

On November 26, 2014, Lufthansa filed a complaint in the United States District for the Western District of Washington. Lufthansa’s complaint in this action alleges that AES manufactures, uses, sells and offers for sale a power supply system which infringes upon a U.S. patent held by Lufthansa. The patent at issue in the U.S. action is based on technology similar to that involved in the German action. However, the U.S. court will not be bound by the ultimate determination made by the German court. The Company believes it has valid defenses to refute Lufthansa’s claims and intends to contest this matter vigorously. As this matter is in the early stages of fact discovery, we do not currently have sufficient information to provide an estimate of AES’s potential exposure related to this matter. As loss exposure is neither probable nor estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to this litigation as of December 31, 2014.

None

10

Table of Contents

On December 31, 2014, we own or lease 1.1 million square feet of space in the U.S., Canada and France, distributed as follows:

* - Acquired pursuant to capital lease.

The lease for the PGA Montierchaume facility expires in December 2018. At the end of the lease, title to this building will transfer to PGA. The lease for the DME Orlando facility expires in February 2020 with one renewal option for five years. The lease for the ATS Irvine facility expires in May 2022 with several renewal options. Upon the expiration of our current leases, we believe that we will be able to either secure renewal terms or enter into leases for alternative locations at market terms. We believe that our properties have been adequately maintained and are generally in good condition.

In January 2014, Peco purchased real estate that included two buildings totaling 237,000 square feet in Clackamas, Oregon and began moving its operations into the buildings in the fourth quarter of 2014. The leases on our two existing buildings in Portland expire in June 2015 and June 2017. Peco has given notice of termination on these two building leases, and expects to vacate the leased facilities in 2015. In January 2015, we acquired three buildings totaling 46,000 square feet in Itasca, Illinois in conjunction with the Armstrong acquisition.

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. Should the Company fail to prevail in any legal matter or should several legal matters be resolved against the Company in the same reporting period, then the financial results of that particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

On December 29, 2010, Lufthansa Technik AG (“Lufthansa”) filed a Statement of Claim in the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany. Lufthansa’s claim asserts that our subsidiary, Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp. (“AES”) sold, marketed and brought into use in Germany a power supply system which infringes upon a German patent held by Lufthansa. The relief sought by Lufthansa includes requiring AES to stop selling and marketing the allegedly infringing power supply system, a recall of allegedly infringing products sold to commercial customers since November 26, 2003 and compensation for damages. The claim does not specify an estimate of damages and a damages claim will be made by Lufthansa only if it receives a favorable ruling on the determination of infringement.

On February 6, 2015, the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany rendered its decision that the patent was infringed. The judgment does not require AES to recall products which are already installed in aircraft or have been sold to other end users.

11

Table of Contents

However, if Lufthansa provides the required bank guarantees specified in the decision, the Company may be required to offer a recall of products which are in the distribution channels in Germany, and provide certain financial information regarding sales of the infringing product to enable Lufthansa to make an estimate of requested damages. No such bank guarantees have been issued to date.

The Company expects to appeal and believes it has valid defenses to refute the decision. The appeal process is estimated to extend up to two years. As a result, we do not currently have sufficient information to provide an estimate of AES’s potential exposure related to this matter. As loss exposure is neither probable nor estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to this litigation as of December 31, 2014.

On November 26, 2014, Lufthansa filed a complaint in the United States District for the Western District of Washington. Lufthansa’s complaint in this action alleges that AES manufactures, uses, sells and offers for sale a power supply system which infringes upon a U.S. patent held by Lufthansa. The patent at issue in the U.S. action is based on technology similar to that involved in the German action. However, the U.S. court will not be bound by the ultimate determination made by the German court. The Company believes it has valid defenses to refute Lufthansa’s claims and intends to contest this matter vigorously. As this matter is in the early stages of fact discovery, we do not currently have sufficient information to provide an estimate of AES’s potential exposure related to this matter. As loss exposure is neither probable nor estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to this litigation as of December 31, 2014.

Other than these proceedings, we are not party to any significant pending legal proceedings that management believes will result in material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Not Applicable

12

Table of Contents

PART II

The table below sets forth the range of prices for the Company’s Common Stock, traded on the NASDAQ National Market System, for each quarterly period during the last two years. The approximate number of shareholders of record as of January 31, 2015, was 884 for Common Stock and 1,321 for Class B Stock.

The Company has not paid any cash dividends in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014. The Company has no plans to pay cash dividends as it plans to retain all cash from operations as a source of capital to finance growth in the business.

On August 21, 2014, the Company announced a twenty percent distribution of Class B Stock to holders of both Common and Class B Stock. Stockholders received one share of Class B Stock for every five shares of Common and Class B Stock held on the record date of September 5, 2014. Fractional shares were paid in cash. All share quantities, share prices and per share data reported throughout this report have been adjusted to reflect the impact of this distribution.

With respect to information regarding our securities authorized for issuance under equity incentive plans, the information contained in the section entitled “Equity Compensation Plan Information” of our definitive Proxy Statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders is incorporated herein by reference.

The Company repurchased and subsequently retired approximately 42,601 and 4,073 shares of common stock in conjunction with the exercise of stock options in 2014 and 2013, respectively.

13

Table of Contents

The following graph and table shows the performance of the Company’s common stock compared with the S&P 500 Index — Total Return and the NASDAQ US and Foreign Companies for a $100 investment made December 31, 2009:

14

Table of Contents

Five-Year Performance Highlights

OVERVIEW

Astronics, through its subsidiaries, designs and manufactures advanced, high-performance electrical power generation and distribution systems, lighting and safety systems, avionics products and aircraft structures for the global aerospace industry as well as test, training and simulation systems primarily for the military, semi-conductor and consumer electronics markets.

Our strategy is to invest significantly in engineering, research and development to develop and maintain positions of technical leadership. We expect to leverage those positions to increase our ship set content, growing the amount of content and volume of products we sell and to selectively acquire businesses with similar technical capabilities.

We have two reportable segments, Aerospace and Test Systems. Our Aerospace segment has eleven principal operating facilities located in New York State, Florida, Illinois, two in New Hampshire, two in Oregon, two in Washington State, Quebec, Canada and Montierchaume, France. Our Test Systems segment has facilities located in Florida and California.

Our Aerospace segment serves three primary markets. They are the military, commercial transport and business jet markets. The Test Systems segment serves the military and defense markets. With the addition of ATS in 2014, the Test Systems segment also serves the commercial electronics and semi-conductor markets.

Important factors affecting our growth and profitability are the rate at which new aircraft are produced, government funding of military programs, our ability to have our products designed into new aircraft and the rates at which aircraft owners, including

15

Table of Contents

commercial airlines, refurbish or install upgrades to their aircraft. New aircraft build rates and aircraft owners spending on upgrades and refurbishments is cyclical and dependent on the strength of the global economy. Once designed into a new aircraft, the spare parts business is frequently retained by the Company. With the acquisition of ATS in 2014, future growth and profitability of the test business is dependent on developing and procuring new and follow-on business in commercial electronics and semi-conductor markets as well as with the military. The nature of our test systems business is such that it pursues large multi-year projects. There can be significant periods of time between orders in this business which may result in large fluctuations of sales and profit levels and backlog from period to period.

Each of the markets that we serve presents opportunities that we expect will provide growth for the Company over the long-term. We continue to look for opportunities in all of our markets to capitalize on our core competencies to expand our existing business and to grow through strategic acquisitions.

Challenges which continue to face us include improving shareholder value through increasing profitability. Increasing profitability is dependent on many things, primarily revenue growth and the Company’s ability to control operating expenses and to identify means of creating improved productivity. Revenue is driven by increased build rates for existing aircraft, market acceptance and economic success of new aircraft, continued government funding of defense programs, the Company’s ability to obtain production contracts for parts we currently supply or have been selected to design and develop for new aircraft platforms and continually identifying and winning new business for our Test Systems segment. Reduced aircraft build rates driven by a weak economy, tight credit markets, reduced air passenger travel and an increasing supply of used aircraft on the market would likely result in reduced demand for our products, which will result in lower profits. Reduction of defense spending may result in fewer opportunities for us to compete, which could result in lower profits in the future. Many of our newer development programs are based on new and unproven technology and at the same time we are challenged to develop the technology on a schedule that is consistent with specific programs. We will continue to address these challenges by working to improve operating efficiencies and focusing on executing on the growth opportunities currently in front of us.

ACQUISITIONS

On January 14, 2015, the Company purchased 100% of the equity of Armstrong for approximately $52.0 million in cash. Armstrong, located in Itasca, Illinois, is a leading provider of engineering, design and certification solutions for commercial aircraft, specializing in connectivity, in-flight entertainment, and electrical power systems. Armstrong will be included in our Aerospace segment.

On February 28, 2014, Astronics completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and liabilities of EADS North America’s Test and Services division. ATS is located in Irvine, California and is a leading provider of highly engineered automatic test systems, subsystems and instruments for the semi-conductor, consumer electronics, commercial aerospace and defense industries. The purchase price was approximately $69.4 million in cash.

On December 5, 2013, we acquired 100% of the stock of PGA, located in Chateauroux, France. PGA designs and manufactures seat motion and lighting systems primarily for premium class aircraft seats and is a provider of in-flight entertainment/communication systems as well as cabin management systems for private aircraft. The purchase price was approximately $31.3 million, comprised of $9.1 million of cash and the balance paid with 264,168 shares of Astronics stock valued at $51.00/share. PGA is included in our Aerospace segment.

On October 1, 2013, we acquired certain assets and liabilities from AeroSat Corporation and related entities, a supplier of aircraft antenna systems, for $12 million in cash, plus contingent purchase consideration of up to a maximum of $53.0 million based upon the achievement of certain revenue levels in 2014 and 2015. The fair value of the estimated contingent consideration at December 31, 2014 is approximately $1.5 million. AeroSat is included in our Aerospace segment.

On July 18, 2013, we acquired 100% of the stock of Peco, which designs and manufacturers highly engineered commercial aerospace interior components and systems for the aerospace industry. The company specializes in overhead Passenger Service Units (“PSUs”), which incorporate air handling, emergency oxygen, electrical power management and cabin lighting systems. It also manufactures a wide range of fuel access doors that meet stringent strength, fuel sealing and anti-corrosion requirements. We purchased the outstanding stock of Peco for $136.0 million in cash. Peco is included in our Aerospace segment.

16

Table of Contents

MARKETS

Commercial Transport Market

Sales to the commercial transport market include sales of electrical power & motion products, lighting & safety products, structures products and avionics products. Sales to this market totaled approximately $396.1 million or 60.0% of our consolidated sales in 2014.

Maintaining and growing sales to the commercial transport market will depend on airlines’ capital spending budgets for cabin upgrades as well as the purchase of new aircraft by global airlines. This spending by the airlines is impacted by their profits, cash flow and available financing as well as competitive pressures between the airlines to improve the travel experience for their passengers. We expect that new aircraft will be equipped with more IFE and in-seat power than previous generation aircraft. This market has experienced strong growth as the airlines are installing in-seat passenger power systems on their aircraft. Our ability to maintain and grow sales to this market depends on our ability to maintain our technological advantages over our competitors and maintain our relationships with major IFE suppliers and global airlines.

Military Aerospace Market

Sales to the military aerospace market include sales of lighting & safety products, avionics products, electrical power & motion products and other products. Sales to this market totaled approximately 6.5% of our consolidated revenue in 2014 and amounted to $42.4 million in 2014.

The military market is dependent on governmental funding which can change from year to year. Risks are that overall spending may be reduced in the future, specific programs may be eliminated or that we fail to win new business through the competitive bid process. Astronics does not have significant reliance on any one program such that cancellation of a particular program will cause material financial loss. We believe that we will continue to have opportunities similar to past years regarding this market.

Business Jet Market

Sales to the business jet aerospace market include sales of lighting & safety products, avionics products, and electrical power & motion products. Sales to this market totaled approximately 5.9% of our consolidated revenue in 2014 and amounted to $38.8 million.

Sales to the business jet market are driven by our ship set content on new aircraft and build rates of new aircraft. Business jet OEM build rates continue to be significantly impacted by slow global wealth creation and corporate profitability which have been negatively affected during the past several years by the slow recovery from the global recession. Our sales to the business jet market will continue to be challenged in the upcoming year as business jet aircraft production rates are not expected to increase significantly during 2015 as the global economy continues to struggle. Despite the current market conditions, we continue to see opportunities on new aircraft currently in the design phase to employ our lighting & safety, electrical power and avionics technologies in the business jet market. There is risk involved in the development of any new aircraft including the risk that the aircraft will not ultimately be produced or that it will be produced in lower quantities than originally expected and thus impacting our return on our engineering and development efforts.

Other Aerospace

Sales of our other aerospace products include sales of airfield lighting products and other Peco products. Sales to this market totaled approximately 2.6% of our total revenue in 2014 and amounted to $17.4 million in 2014.

Tests Systems Products

Our Test Systems segment accounted for approximately 25.0% of our consolidated sales in 2014 and amounted to $166.3 million. Sales to the commercial electronics market were approximately $130.9 million, and were attributable to the acquisition of ATS in February 2014. Sales to the military test market were approximately $35.4 million in 2014.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Our financial statements and accompanying notes are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of the Company’s financial statements requires management to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that affect the amounts reported. These estimates, assumptions and judgments are affected by management’s application of accounting policies, which are discussed in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 1 of Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this report. The critical accounting policies have been reviewed with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

17

Table of Contents

Revenue Recognition

The vast majority of our sales agreements are for standard products and services, with revenue recognized on the accrual basis at the time of shipment of goods, transfer of title and customer acceptance, where required. There are no significant contracts allowing for right of return. To a limited extent, as a result of the acquisition of ATS, certain of our contracts involve multiple elements (such as equipment and service). The Company recognizes revenue for delivered elements when they have stand-alone value to the customer, they have been accepted by the customer, and for which there are only customary refund or return rights. Arrangement consideration is allocated to the deliverables by use of the relative selling price method. The selling price used for each deliverable is based on vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) if available, third party-evidence (“TPE”) if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor TPE is available. Estimated selling price is determined in a manner consistent with that used to establish the price to sell the deliverable on a standalone basis.

For prepaid service contracts, sales revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the contract, unless historical evidence indicates the costs are incurred on other than a straight-line basis.

Revenue of approximately $2.7 million, $4.4 million and $4.2 million for the years ending December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, was recognized from long-term, fixed-price contracts using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting.

Reviews for Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Goodwill Impairment Testing

Our goodwill is the result of the excess of purchase price over net assets acquired from acquisitions. As of December 31, 2014, we had approximately $100.2 million of goodwill. As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately $101.0 million of goodwill. The change in goodwill is due to the adjustments to the final purchase price allocations of Peco, AeroSat and PGA, acquired in 2013, coupled with currency translation adjustments, collectively decreasing goodwill by $0.8 million.

We identify our reporting units by assessing whether the components of our operating segments constitute businesses for which discrete financial information is available and segment management regularly reviews the operating results of those components. The Test Systems operating segment is its own reporting unit while the other reporting units are one level below our Aerospace operating segment.

Companies may perform a qualitative assessment as the initial step in the annual goodwill impairment testing process for all or selected reporting units. Companies are also allowed to bypass the qualitative analysis and perform a quantitative analysis if desired. Economic uncertainties and the length of time from the calculation of a baseline fair value are factors that we would consider in determining whether to perform a quantitative test.

When we evaluate the potential for goodwill impairment using a qualitative assessment, we consider factors including, but not limited to, macroeconomic conditions, industry conditions, the competitive environment, changes in the market for our products and services, regulatory and political developments, entity specific factors such as strategy and changes in key personnel and overall financial performance. If, after completing this assessment, it is determined that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying value, we proceed to a quantitative two-step impairment test.

Quantitative testing first requires a comparison of the fair value of each reporting unit to the carrying value. We use the discounted cash flow method to estimate the fair value of each of our reporting units. The discounted cash flow method incorporates various assumptions, the most significant being projected revenue growth rates, operating profit margins and cash flows, the terminal growth rate and the discount rate. Management projects revenue growth rates, operating margins and cash flows based on each reporting unit’s current business, expected developments and operational strategies. If the carrying value of the reporting unit exceeds its fair value, goodwill is considered impaired and any loss must be measured.

In measuring the impairment loss, the implied fair value of goodwill is determined by assigning a fair value to all of the reporting unit’s assets and liabilities, including any unrecognized intangible assets, as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination at fair value. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss would be recognized in an amount equal to that excess.

In 2014, we performed quantitative assessments for the seven reporting units which have goodwill and concluded that it is more likely than not that their fair values exceed their carrying values. Based on our quantitative assessments of our reporting units, we concluded that goodwill was not impaired.

18

Table of Contents

Amortized Intangible Asset Impairment Testing

Amortizable intangible assets with a carrying value of $95.0 million at December 31, 2014 are amortized over their assigned useful lives. We test these long-lived assets for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of those assets may not be recoverable. The recoverability test consists of comparing the projected undiscounted cash flows associated with the asset to its carrying amount. An impairment loss would then be recognized for the carrying amount in excess of its fair value. There were no impairment charges in 2014, 2013 or 2012.

Depreciable Asset Impairment Testing

Property, plant and equipment with a carrying value of $116.3 million at December 31, 2014 are depreciated over their assigned useful lives. We test these long-lived assets for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of those assets may not be recoverable. The recoverability test consists of comparing the projected undiscounted cash flows, with its carrying amount. An impairment loss would then be recognized for the carrying amount in excess of its fair value. There were no impairment charges in 2014, 2013 or 2012.

Inventory Valuation

We record valuation reserves to provide for excess, slow moving or obsolete inventory or to reduce inventory to the lower of cost or market value. In determining the appropriate reserve, management considers the age of inventory on hand, the overall inventory levels in relation to forecasted demands as well as reserving for specifically identified inventory that we believe is no longer salable. At December 31, 2014, our reserve for inventory valuation was $12.3 million, or 9.6% of gross inventory. At December 31, 2013, our reserve for inventory valuation was $11.0 million, or 11.5% of gross inventory.

Deferred Tax Asset Valuation Allowances

Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. We record a valuation allowance to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount of future tax benefit that we believe is more likely than not to be realized. Significant assumptions regarding future profitability is required to estimate the value of these deferred tax assets. We consider recent earnings projections, allowable tax carryforward periods, tax planning strategies and historical earnings performance to determine the amount of the valuation allowance. Changes in these factors could cause us to adjust our valuation allowance, which would impact our income tax expense and the carrying value of these assets when we determine that these factors have changed.

As of December 31, 2014, we had net deferred tax liabilities of $13.2 million. Included in the deferred tax liabilities are approximately $20.3 million in deferred tax assets net of a $3.1 million valuation allowance. These deferred tax assets principally relate to goodwill and intangible assets, employee benefit liabilities, asset reserves, depreciation and state and foreign general business tax credit carry-forwards.

As of December 31, 2013, we had net deferred tax liabilities of $19.9 million. Included in the deferred tax liabilities are approximately $17.5 million in deferred tax assets net of a $2.5 million valuation allowance. These deferred tax assets principally relate to goodwill and intangible assets, employee benefit liabilities, asset reserves, depreciation and state and foreign general business tax credit carry-forwards.

Because of the uncertainty as to the Company’s ability to generate sufficient future taxable income in certain states, the Company has recorded the valuation allowances accordingly in 2014 and 2013.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) Assumptions

We maintain two non-qualified defined benefit supplemental retirement plans (“SERP” and “SERP II”) for certain executive officers and retired former executive officers. Expense for these plans in 2014 was $1.6 million. Plan obligations and the related costs are determined using actuarial valuations that involve several assumptions that may be highly uncertain and may have a material impact on the financial statements if different reasonable assumptions had been used. The most critical assumptions include the discount rate, future wage increases, retirement age and life expectancy. The discount rate is used to state expected future cash flows at present value. Using a lower discount rate increases the present value of pension obligations and increases pension expense. For determining the discount rate the Company considers long-term interest rates for high-grade corporate bonds. The discount rate for determining the expense recognized in 2014 was 5.1% compared with 4.2% in 2013. We will use a discount rate of 4.05% in determining our 2015 expense. The assumption for compensation increases takes a long-term view of inflation and performance based salary adjustments based on the Company’s approach to executive compensation. The rate used for future wage increases was 5%. It was assumed that each participant retires after fully vesting in the plan at age 62 or 65. A 100 point increase in the discount rate we used would decrease our annual pension expense for 2015 by $0.3 million. If we had assumed annual wage increases of 6%, our 2015 pension expense would increase approximately $0.2 million.

19

Table of Contents

Stock-Based Compensation

We have stock-based compensation plans, which include non-qualified stock options as well as incentive stock options. Expense recognized for stock-based compensation was $1.7 million for 2014, $1.4 million for 2013 and $1.4 million for 2012. We determine the fair value of the option awards at the date of grant using a Black-Scholes model. Option pricing models require management to make assumptions and to apply judgment to determine the fair value of the award. These assumptions and judgments include estimating the future volatility of our stock price, expected dividend yield, future employee stock option exercise behaviors and future employee turnover rates. Changes in these assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate.

Acquisitions

The Company accounts for its acquisitions under ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations and Reorganizations (“ASC Topic 805”). ASC Topic 805 provides guidance on how the acquirer recognizes and measures the consideration transferred, identifiable assets acquired, liabilities assumed, non-controlling interests, and goodwill acquired in a business combination. ASC Topic 805 also expands required disclosures surrounding the nature and financial effects of business combinations. Acquisition costs are expensed as incurred. Acquisition expenses in 2014 and 2013 were approximately $0.3 and $1.9 million, respectively, and were insignificant in 2012.

When the Company acquires a business, we allocate the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the transaction at their respective estimated fair values. We record any premium over the fair value of net assets acquired as goodwill. The allocation of the purchase price involves judgments and estimates both in characterizing the assets and in determining their fair value. The way we characterize the assets has important implications, as long-lived assets with definitive lives, for example, are depreciated or amortized, whereas goodwill is tested annually for impairment, as explained previously. With respect to determining the fair value of assets, the most subjective estimates involve valuations of long-lived assets, such as property, plant, and equipment as well as identified intangible assets. We use all available information to make these fair value determinations and engage independent valuation specialists to assist in the fair value determination of the acquired long-lived assets. The fair values of long-lived assets are determined using valuation techniques that use discounted cash flow methods, independent market appraisals and other acceptable valuation techniques.

With respect to determining the fair value of the purchase price, the most subjective estimates involve valuations of contingent consideration. Significant judgment is necessary to determine the fair value of the purchase price when the transaction includes an earn-out provision, such as the earn-out provision included in our 2013 acquisition of AeroSat. We engage valuation specialists to assist in the determination of the fair value of contingent consideration. Key assumptions used to value the contingent consideration include future projections and discount rates.

During 2014, acquisitions added approximately $17.1 million in property, plant and equipment and $10.1 million in purchased intangible assets. See Note 19 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, regarding the acquisitions in 2014 and 2013.

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND OUTLOOK

A discussion by segment can be found at “Segment Results of Operations and Outlook” in this MD&A.

CONSOLIDATED OVERVIEW OF OPERATIONS

Consolidated sales in 2014 increased by 94.5%, or $321.1 million, to $661.0 million, compared with $339.9 million in 2013. The increase was due to a combination of acquisitions and organic sales volume growth. Acquisitions contributed $270.4 million (comprised of $111.2 million in the Aerospace segment and $159.2 million in the Test Systems segment), while organic sales increased by $50.7 million or 14.9% from the prior year. On a segment basis, Aerospace sales of $494.7 million increased by $164.2 million, while Test Systems sales of $166.3 million increased by $156.9 million compared with the prior year.

20

Table of Contents

The increase of consolidated sales in 2013 compared to 2012 was due to a combination of acquisitions and organic sales volume growth. Consolidated year-to-date sales increased by 27.6% to $339.9 million in 2013, compared with $266.4 million in 2012. Acquisitions contributed $39.5 million, all in the Aerospace segment, while organic sales increased by $34.0 million or 12.8% from 2012. Aerospace sales of $330.5 million increased by $75.6 million, while Test Systems sales of $9.4 million decreased by $2.1 million, compared with 2012.

Consolidated cost of products sold increased $241.9 million to $494.0 million in 2014 from $252.1 million in the prior year. The increase was due to the cost of products sold associated with increased organic sales volumes and the incremental costs of products sold associated with sales from acquired businesses totaling $208.0 million. Consolidated cost of products sold as a percentage of sales was 74.7% in 2014 as compared with 74.2% in the prior year. Leverage achieved from increased organic sales volume was offset by lower margins from the acquired businesses, which were impacted by higher costs related to the fair value step-up of acquired inventory. Expense related to the fair value step-up of inventory from acquired businesses was $19.4 million and $5.5 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively. Consolidated cost of products sold was also negatively impacted by increased depreciation expenses of $3.0 million, increased warranty costs of $2.9 million and increased engineering & development (“E&D”) costs. Total E&D costs were $76.7 million in 2014, including $19.1 million acquired businesses. E&D costs were $52.8 million in 2013.

Consolidated cost of products sold increased $55.1 million to $252.1 million in 2013 from $197.0 million in 2012. The increase was due to the impact of increased organic sales volumes and the additional costs of products sold associated with 2013 acquisitions. Cost of products sold as a percentage of sales was 74.2% in 2013 as compared with 73.9% in the prior year. Cost of products sold in 2013 increased by approximately $7.9 million and included $5.5 million for the expensing of fair value cost step-up of acquired inventory and increased E&D costs. These costs were slightly offset by lower warranty and inventory obsolescence expenses of approximately $2.9 million. E&D costs were $52.8 million for the full year of 2013 compared with $44.9 million in the prior-year period.

Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses in 2014 were $79.7 million, or 12.1% of sales compared with $45.6 million, or 13.4% of sales, in the prior year. The increase was due primarily to $34.8 million in incremental SG&A costs of acquired businesses, including $10.4 million of incremental amortization expense for acquired intangible assets. Additionally, higher SG&A expense reflects increased headcount and compensation costs to support growth. SG&A expenses in 2014 were positively affected by the $5.0 million fair value writedown of a contingent consideration liability related to the Ballard and AeroSat acquisitions.

SG&A expenses in 2013 were $45.6 million, or 13.4% of sales compared with $36.8 million, or 13.8% of sales, in 2012. The increase was due primarily to $7.8 million of additional SG&A costs for the acquired businesses, including $3.2 million of purchased intangible asset amortization expense associated with these acquisitions and $1.8 million relating to the acquisition transactions including financing, legal and diligence efforts.

Interest expense increased in 2014 compared to 2013 due to increased debt levels used primarily to finance the acquisition of ATS, somewhat offset by lower interest rates due to the September 2014 debt refinancing. Interest expense increased in 2013 compared to 2012 due to increased debt levels used primarily to finance acquisitions and increased interest rates related to higher leverage ratios.

Our effective tax rates for 2014, 2013 and 2012 were 29.0%, 28.6% and 30.7%, respectively. Our tax rate is affected by recurring items, such as tax rates in foreign jurisdictions and the relative amount of income we earn in jurisdictions, which we expect to be fairly consistent in the near term. It is also affected by discrete items that may occur in any given year, but are not consistent from year to year. In addition to state income taxes, the following items had the most significant impact on the difference between our statutory U.S. federal income tax rate of 35% and our effective tax rate:

2014:

2013:

21

Table of Contents

2012:

2015 Outlook

We expect consolidated sales in 2015 to be between $680 million and $740 million, including the January 2015 addition of Armstrong. Our consolidated backlog at December 31, 2014 was $370.7 million of which approximately $321.8 million is expected to ship in 2015.

We expect our capital equipment spending in 2015 to be in the range of $20 million to $25 million, excluding Armstrong. E&D costs are estimated to be in the range of $75 million to $80 million, excluding Armstrong.

SEGMENT RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND OUTLOOK

Operating profit, as presented below, is sales less cost of sales and other operating expenses excluding interest expense, corporate expenses and other non-operating revenue and expenses. Cost of sales and operating expenses are directly attributable to the respective segment. Operating profit is reconciled to earnings before income taxes in Note 18 of Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, of this report.

AEROSPACE SEGMENT

Sales for the Aerospace segment increased $164.2 million in 2014 compared with the prior year. Organic sales grew 16.0%, or $53.0 million. Incremental sales from acquired businesses were $111.2 million.

Sales to the commercial transport market increased $158.3 million. Organic sales were up $64.2 million and sales from acquired businesses added $94.1 million. The organic sales increase was primarily from electrical power & motion products, which increased approximately $42.2 million as global demand for passenger power systems continued to be strong. Additionally, organic sales of lighting & safety products to this market increased approximately $11.9 million, while organic sales of avionics products increased $8.6 million.

Military aircraft sales decreased $6.2 million when compared with the prior year. The acquired businesses added $1.8 million while organic sales were $8.0 million lower due primarily to general reduction of volumes.

Sales to the business jet market increased $9.0 million when compared with the prior year. The acquired businesses added $10.7 million in sales, more than offsetting lower organic sales which decreased $1.7 million, primarily from the lighting & safety and electrical power & motion product lines.

22

Table of Contents

The $3.1 million increase in 2014 to other markets reflected approximately $4.6 million from acquired businesses offset by a $1.5 million decrease of organic sales.

Aerospace operating profit for 2014 was $79.8 million, or 16.1% of sales, compared with $55.2 million, or 16.7% of sales, in the prior year. The acquired businesses contributed approximately $9.4 million in incremental operating profit in 2014. Leverage achieved from higher organic sales volume was partially offset by increased organic E&D costs of approximately $5.0 million and an increase in organic warranty costs of $2.3 million. Additionally impacting Aerospace operating margins, cost of products sold had expense related to the fair value step-up of inventory from acquired businesses of approximately $2.6 million and $5.5 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively. Aerospace SG&A expense increased $19.4 million in 2014 compared to 2013. The increase was due primarily to the incremental SG&A of acquired businesses, which added $16.7 million, including $4.4 million of acquired intangible asset amortization expense.

Sales for the Aerospace segment in 2013 increased $75.6 million compared with 2012. Sales for this segment from the acquired businesses accounted for $39.4 million of the increase. Organic sales for this segment were up $36.2 million in 2013 primarily from electrical power & motion product sales. Sales to the commercial transport market increased in 2013 due to increased volume of electrical power & motion, lighting & safety products and structures products. Sales of the electrical power & motion products grew as global demand for passenger power systems continues to be strong. Lighting & safety product sales increased in 2013 due primarily to the acquisition of Peco, which added $25.9 million in sales to this product line. Peco also contributed $6.3 million of structures sales to the commercial transport market in 2013. Sales of avionics products to this market were flat when compared to 2012. Military sales were up compared with 2012 as a result of higher sales volume of lighting & safety products, electrical power & motion products and avionics products. Sales to the business jet market were down slightly when compared with 2012 as higher sales volumes of electrical power & motion products and avionics product sales were more than offset by a lower volume of lighting & safety product sales. Sales to other markets increased $4.4 million in 2013 due primarily to the acquisition of Peco other product sales.

Aerospace operating profit for 2013 was $55.2 million, or 16.7% of sales, compared with $44.1 million, or 17.3% of sales, in 2012. The increase in the operating profit was due to leverage from a higher volume of sales, lower warranty and inventory obsolescence expense of $2.9 million and lower legal expenses of $1.1 million which more than offset the $5.5 million fair value expense for the step-up of acquired inventory from the 2013 acquisitions and higher E&D expenses of $8.0 million, of which approximately $1.9 million was from the acquired businesses. SG&A costs for the businesses acquired in 2013 totaled $6.6 million for 2013, including $3.2 million of purchased intangible asset amortization expense associated with these acquisitions.

It is our intention to continue investing in capabilities and technologies as needed that allows us to execute our strategy to increase the ship set content and value we provide on aircraft in all markets that we serve. The rate of spending on these activities, however, will continue to be driven by market opportunities.

2015 Outlook for Aerospace – We expect 2015 Aerospace segment sales to be in the range of $550 million to $580 million. The Aerospace segment’s backlog at December 31, 2014 was $223.7 million, compared to $207.1 million at December 31, 2013. Approximately $205.5 million of the backlog at December 31, 2014 is expected to be shipped over the next 12 months.

TEST SYSTEMS SEGMENT

Sales in 2014 increased $156.9 million to $166.3 million compared with sales of $9.4 million for 2013. Incremental sales to both the Commercial Electronics and Military markets from the acquisition of ATS drove the growth. Sales from this acquired business were $159.2 million in 2014; organic test system sales were $7.1 million for 2014. Sales from ATS’s largest customer were $118.1 million in 2014.

23

Table of Contents

Sales in 2013 and 2012 were all to the military market. Test Systems’ military market continues to face headwinds as military spending has slowed and there are fewer opportunities for large programs.

Operating profit for 2014 was $12.4 million compared with an operating loss of $3.8 million for 2013. All of the improvement was due to the margin provided by the ATS acquisition. Included in 2014 cost of products sold was the impact of $16.8 million of expense related to the fair value step-up of acquired inventory. Incremental SG&A and E&D costs of the acquired business were approximately $18.2 million and $9.1 million, respectively.

2015 Outlook for Test Systems – We expect 2015 Test System segment sales to be in the range of $130 million to $160 million. The Test System segment’s backlog at December 31, 2014 was $147.0 million (compared with $7.1 million at December 31, 2013), with approximately $116.3 million scheduled to be shipped over the next 12 months. By December 31, 2014, we have delivered the final unit under our current contract with our major customer. A follow on order from this customer was received in 2014, which is expected to begin shipping in 2015.

OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

We do not have material off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a material future effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

The following table represents contractual obligations as of December 31, 2014:

Notes to Contractual Obligations Table

Long-term Debt — See item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 6, Long-Term Debt and Note Payable in this report.

Interest on Long-term Debt — Future interest payments have been calculated using the applicable interest rate of each debt facility as of December 31, 2014. Actual future rates may differ from these estimates.

Purchase Obligations — Purchase obligations are comprised of the Company’s commitments for goods and services in the normal course of business.

Operating Leases — Operating lease obligations are primarily related to facility leases for our AES, AeroSat, Ballard, DME, Max-Viz, Peco and LSI Canada.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Our cash flow from operations and available borrowing capacity provide us with the financial resources needed to run our operations and reinvest in our business.

Operating Activities

Cash provided by operating activities was $99.9 million in 2014 compared with $49.5 million in 2013. The increase of $50.4 million in 2014 was primarily a result of higher net income as adjusted for non-cash expenses and the impact of decreases in net operating assets in 2014 when compared with 2013 net of the effects from acquisitions of business.

24

Table of Contents

Cash provided by operating activities was $49.5 million in 2013 compared with $24.2 million in 2012. The increase of $25.3 million in 2013 was primarily a result of higher net income, increases in non-cash expenses offset by cash used for net working capital components.

Our cash flows from operations are primarily dependent on our net income adjusted for non-cash expenses and the timing of collections of receivables, level of inventory and payments to suppliers and employees. Sales and operating results of our Aerospace segment are influenced by the build rates of new aircraft, which are subject to general economic conditions, airline passenger travel and spending for government and military programs. Our Test Systems segment depends on capital expenditures of the semiconductor and consumer electronics industries which, in turn, depend on current and future demand for those products. A reduction in demand for our customers’ products would adversely affect our operating results and cash flows.

Investing Activities

Cash used for investing activities in 2014 was $109.1 million. The acquisition of ATS used approximately $69.4 million of cash in 2014 and purchases of property, plant and equipment (“PP&E”) used $40.9 million, primarily related to the acquisition and modification of the new buildings for our Peco operation in Clackamas, Oregon ($24.7 million).

Cash used for investing activities in 2013 was approximately $166.7 million. The acquisitions of Peco, AeroSat and PGA used approximately $159.8 million of cash in 2013 and purchases of PP&E used $6.9 million.

Our expectation for 2015 is that we will invest between $20 million and $25 million for PP&E, excluding Armstrong. Future requirements for PP&E depend on numerous factors, including expansion of existing product lines and introduction of new products. Management believes that our cash flow from operations and current borrowing arrangements will provide for these capital expenditures. We expect to continue to evaluate acquisition opportunities in the future.

Financing Activities

Our ability to maintain sufficient liquidity is highly dependent upon achieving expected operating results. Failure to achieve expected operating results could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, our ability to obtain financing and our operations in the future. Our obligations under our Credit Agreement are jointly and severally guaranteed by each of our domestic subsidiaries. The obligations are secured by a first priority lien on substantially all of the Company’s and the guarantors’ assets and 100% of the issued and outstanding equity interest of each subsidiary.

In July 2013, in connection with funding the 2013 acquisitions, the Company amended its existing credit facility by entering into a Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of July 18, 2013, which provided for a $75 million five-year revolving credit facility and a $190 million five-year term loan, both maturing on June 30, 2018. The amended facilities carried an interest rate ranging from 225 basis points to 350 basis points above LIBOR, depending on the Company’s leverage ratio as defined in the Credit Agreement. Principal installments were payable on the term loan in varying quarterly amounts through March 31, 2018 and the entire unpaid principal balance together with interest due and payable on June 30, 2018 and with mandatory prepayments being required in certain circumstances. The credit facility was secured by substantially all of the Company’s assets. In addition, the Company was required to pay a commitment fee of between 25 basis points and 50 basis points quarterly on the unused portion of the revolving credit facility, based on the Company’s leverage ratio under the Credit Agreement.

The proceeds of the term loan were used to finance acquisitions, pay off $7.0 million outstanding under the existing term loan, $7.0 million outstanding under the existing revolving credit facility and $0.5 million of other term debt and to pay transaction expenses. There was no balance outstanding on our revolving credit facility at December 31, 2013.

On February 28, 2014, in connection with the funding of the acquisition of ATS, the Company amended its existing credit facility to exercise its option to increase the revolving credit commitment. The Credit Agreement provided for a $125 million five-year revolving credit facility maturing on June 30, 2018, of which $58.0 million was drawn to finance the acquisition. The amended facility temporarily increased the maximum leverage ratio permitted under the agreement. There were no changes to the other covenants, interest rates being charged or commitment fees.

On September 26, 2014, the Company modified and extended its existing credit facility (the “Original Facility”) by entering into the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Agreement”). On the closing date, there were $180.5 million of term loans, $6.0 million of revolving loans and letters of credit with a face amount of $8.7 million outstanding under the Original Facility. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Original Facility was replaced with a $350 million revolving credit line with the option to increase the line by up to $150 million. The outstanding balances in the Original Facility were rolled into the Agreement on the date of entry. In addition, the maturity date of the loans under the Agreement is now September 26, 2019. The credit facility allocates up to $20 million of the $350 million revolving credit line for the issuance of letters of credit, including certain existing letters of credit. At December 31, 2014, outstanding letters of credit totaled $1.1 million.

25

Table of Contents

The primary financing activities in 2014 relate to borrowings on our senior credit facility to fund the acquisition of ATS and principal payments against our outstanding balance on the senior facility. In February 2014, we borrowed $58.0 million to fund the acquisition of ATS. During 2014, we made principal payments of $78.3 million on the senior credit facility, primarily using cash generated by operations. We also terminated our outstanding Industrial Revenue Bonds, which were repaid in full in November 2014 ($7.6 million). In 2013, we borrowed $190.0 million to fund the acquisitions of Peco, AeroSat and PGA and made principal payments of $17.8 million on the senior debt facility through December 31, 2013.

The maximum permitted leverage ratio of funded debt to Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Agreement) is 3.5 to 1, increasing to 4.0 to 1 for up to two fiscal quarters following the closing of an acquisition permitted under the Agreement. The Company will pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of the facility at a rate equal to one-, three- or six-month LIBOR plus between 137.5 basis points and 225 basis points based upon the Company’s leverage ratio. The Company will also pay a commitment fee to the Lenders in an amount equal to between 17.5 basis points and 35 basis points on the undrawn portion of the credit facility, based upon the Company’s leverage ratio. The fixed charge coverage ratio under the Original Facility has been replaced with a minimum interest coverage ratio (Adjusted EBITDA to interest expense) of 3.0 to 1 for the term of the Agreement. At December 31, 2014, the Company was in compliance with all of the covenants pursuant to the Agreement. The Company’s interest coverage ratio was 18.7 to 1 at and the leverage ratio was 1.28 to 1 at December 31, 2014.

The Company’s cash needs for working capital, debt service and capital equipment during 2015 is expected to be met by cash flows from operations and cash balances and, if necessary, utilization of the revolving credit facility.

In the event of voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy of the Company or any subsidiary, all unpaid principal and other amounts owing under the Agreement automatically become due and payable. Other events of default, such as failure to make payments as they become due and breach of financial and other covenants, give the Agent the option to declare all such amounts immediately due and payable. At December 31, 2014, we were in compliance with all of the covenants pursuant to the Agreement.

DIVIDENDS

Management believes that it should retain the capital generated from operating activities for investment in advancing technologies, acquisitions and debt retirement. Accordingly, there are no plans to institute a cash dividend program.

BACKLOG

At December 31, 2014, the Company’s backlog was approximately $370.7 million compared with approximately $214.2 million at December 31, 2013.

RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Information regarding certain relationships and related transactions is incorporated herein by reference to the information included in the Company’s 2015 Proxy Statement which will be filed with the Commission within 120 days after the end of the Company’s 2014 fiscal year.

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

See Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements at Item 8 of this report.

The Company has limited exposure to fluctuation in Canadian and Euro currency exchange rates to the U.S. dollar. Over 90% of the Company’s consolidated sales are transacted in U.S. dollars.

Net assets held in or measured in Canadian dollars amounted to $7.6 million at December 31, 2014. Annual disbursements transacted in Canadian dollars were approximately $13.3 million in 2014. A 10% change in the value of the U.S. dollar versus the Canadian dollar would have had an insignificant impact to 2014 net income; however it could be significant in the future.

Net assets held in or measured in Euros amounted to $30.4 million at December 31, 2014. Disbursements transacted in Euros in 2014 were approximately $48.1 million. A 10% change in the value of the U.S. dollar versus the Euros would have had an insignificant impact to 2014 net income; however it could be significant in the future.

Risk due to fluctuation in interest rates is a function of the Company’s floating rate debt obligations, which total approximately $165.0 million at December 31, 2014. A change of 1% in interest rates of all variable rate debt would impact annual net income by approximately $1.1 million.

26

Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Astronics Corporation

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Astronics Corporation as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Astronics Corporation at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Astronics Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1992 framework) and our report dated February 27, 2015 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Buffalo, New York

February 27, 2015

27

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act. Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014 based upon the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework originally issued in 1992 by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on that evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as of December 31, 2014.

We completed an acquisition in 2014, which was excluded from our management’s report on internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014. We acquired Astronics Test Systems, Inc. on February 28, 2014. This acquisition was included in our 2014 consolidated financial statements and constituted $60.4 million and $11.7 million of total and net assets, respectively, as of December 31, 2014 and $159.2 million and $6.8 million of sales and net income, respectively, for the year then ended.

Ernst & Young LLP, independent registered public accounting firm, has audited our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and, as part of their audit, has issued their report, included herein, on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

28

Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Astronics Corporation

We have audited Astronics Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1992 framework) (the COSO criteria). Astronics Corporation’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

As indicated in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting, management’s assessment of and conclusion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting did not include the internal controls of Astronics Test Systems, Inc. acquired on February 28, 2014, which is included in the 2014 consolidated financial statements of Astronics Corporation and constituted $60.4 million and $11.7 million of total and net assets, respectively, as of December 31, 2014 and $159.2 million and $6.8 million of sales and net income, respectively, for the year then ended. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of Astronics Corporation also did not include an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of Astronics Test Systems, Inc.

In our opinion, Astronics Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Astronics Corporation as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014 of Astronics Corporation and our report dated February 27, 2015 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Buffalo, New York

February 27, 2015

29

Table of Contents

ASTRONICS CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

30

Table of Contents

ASTRONICS CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

31

Table of Contents

ASTRONICS CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

32

Table of Contents

ASTRONICS CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

33

Table of Contents

ASTRONICS CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY

See notes to consolidated financial statements

34

Table of Contents

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1 — SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

Description of the Business

Astronics Corporation (“Astronics” or the “Company”) is a leading supplier of products to the global aerospace, defense, consumer electronics and semiconductor industries. Our products include advanced, high-performance electrical power generation and distribution systems, lighting and safety systems, avionics products, aircraft structures and automatic test and simulation systems.

We have operations in the United States (“U.S.”), Canada and France. We design and build our products through our wholly owned subsidiaries Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp. (“AES”); Astronics AeroSat Corporation (“AeroSat”); Ballard Technology, Inc. (“Ballard”); DME Corporation (“DME”); Luminescent Systems, Inc. (“LSI”); Luminescent Systems Canada, Inc. (“LSI Canada”); Max-Viz, Inc. (“Max-Viz”); Peco, Inc. (“Peco”); PGA Electronic s.a. (“PGA”); Astronics Test Systems, Inc. and Armstrong Aerospace, Inc. (“Armstrong”).

On July 18, 2013, Astronics acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of Peco. Peco designs and manufactures highly engineered commercial aerospace interior components and systems for the aerospace industry. On October 1, 2013, Astronics acquired certain assets and liabilities from AeroSat Corporation and related entities, a supplier of aircraft antenna systems. On December 5, 2013, Astronics acquired 100% of the stock of PGA. PGA designs and manufactures seat motion and lighting systems primarily for business and first class aircraft seats and is Europe’s leading provider of in-flight entertainment/ communication systems as well as cabin management systems for private aircraft. Peco, AeroSat and PGA are all included in our Aerospace segment.

On February 28, 2014, Astronics acquired, through a wholly owned subsidiary Astronics Test Systems, Inc. (“ATS”), certain assets and liabilities of EADS North America’s Test and Services division, located in Irvine, California. ATS is a leading provider of highly engineered automatic test systems, subsystems and instruments for semi-conductor and consumer electronics products to both the commercial and defense industries. ATS is included in our Test Systems segment.

At December 31, 2014, the Company has two reportable segments, Aerospace and Test Systems. The Aerospace segment designs and manufactures products for the global aerospace industry. The Test Systems segment designs, manufactures and maintains communications and weapons test systems and training and simulation devices for military applications.

On January 14, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the equity of Armstrong for approximately $52.0 million in cash. Armstrong, located in Itasca, Illinois, is a leading provider of engineering, design and certification solutions for commercial aircraft, specializing in connectivity, in-flight entertainment, and electrical power systems. Armstrong will be included in our Aerospace segment.

Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

Acquisitions are accounted for under the acquisition method and, accordingly, the operating results for the acquired companies are included in the consolidated statements of operations from the respective dates of acquisition.

For additional information on the acquired businesses, see Note 19.

Revenue and Expense Recognition

The vast majority of our sales agreements are for standard products and services, with revenue recognized on the accrual basis at the time of shipment of goods, transfer of title and customer acceptance, where required. There are no significant contracts allowing for right of return. To a limited extent, as a result of the acquisition of ATS, certain of our contracts involve multiple elements (such as equipment and service). The Company recognizes revenue for delivered elements when they have stand-alone value to the customer, they have been accepted by the customer, and for which there are only customary refund or return rights. Arrangement consideration is allocated to the deliverables by use of the relative selling price method. The selling price used for each deliverable is based on vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) if available, third party-evidence (“TPE”) if VSOE is not available, or estimated selling price if neither VSOE nor TPE is available. Estimated selling price is determined in a manner consistent with that used to establish the price to sell the deliverable on a standalone basis.

- 35 -

Table of Contents

For prepaid service contracts, sales revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the contract, unless historical evidence indicates the costs are incurred on other than a straight-line basis.

Revenue of approximately $2.7 million, $4.4 million and $4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, was recognized from long-term, fixed-price contracts using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting.

Cost of Products Sold, Engineering and Development and Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Cost of products sold includes the costs to manufacture products such as direct materials and labor and manufacturing overhead as well as all engineering and developmental costs. The Company is engaged in a variety of engineering and design activities as well as basic research and development activities directed to the substantial improvement or new application of the Company’s existing technologies. These costs are expensed when incurred and included in cost of products sold. Research and development, design and related engineering amounted to $76.7 million in 2014, $52.8 million in 2013 and $44.9 million in 2012. Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses include costs primarily related to our sales, marketing and administrative departments.

Shipping and Handling

Shipping and handling costs are expensed as incurred and are included in costs of products sold.

Stock Distribution

On August 21, 2014, the Company announced a one-for-five distribution of Class B Stock to holders of both Common and Class B Stock. Stockholders received one share of Class B Stock for every five shares of Common and Class B Stock held on the record date of September 5, 2014. Fractional shares were paid in cash. All share quantities, share prices and per share data reported throughout this report have been adjusted to reflect the impact of this distribution.

Equity-Based Compensation

The Company accounts for its stock options following Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation (“ASC Topic 718”). This Topic requires all equity-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, to be recognized in the statement of earnings based on the grant date fair value of the award. For awards with graded vesting, the Company uses a straight-line method of attributing the value of stock-based compensation expense, subject to minimum levels of expense, based on vesting.

Under ASC Topic 718, stock compensation expense recognized during the period is based on the value of the portion of share-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period. Vesting requirements vary for directors, officers and key employees. In general, options granted to outside directors vest six months from the date of grant and options granted to officers and key employees vest with graded vesting over a five-year period, 20% each year, from the date of grant.

The tax benefits from share based payment arrangements were approximately $5.3 million in 2014, $1.2 million in 2013 and $1.3 million in 2012. These were classified as cash flows from financing activities.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

All highly liquid instruments with a maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase are considered cash equivalents.

Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

The Company will record a valuation allowance to account for potentially uncollectible accounts receivable. The allowance is determined based on our knowledge of the business, specific customers, review of the receivables’ aging and a specific identification of accounts where collection is at risk. Account balances are charged against the allowance after all means of collections have been exhausted and recovery is considered remote. The Company typically does not require collateral.

Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market, cost being determined primarily in accordance with the first-in, first-out method. The Company records valuation reserves to provide for excess, slow moving or obsolete inventory or to reduce inventory to the lower of cost or market value. In determining the appropriate reserve, the Company considers the age of inventory on hand, the overall inventory levels in relation to forecasted demands as well as reserving for specifically identified inventory that the Company believes is no longer salable.

- 36 -

Table of Contents

Property, Plant and Equipment

Depreciation of property, plant and equipment is computed using the straight-line method for financial reporting purposes and using accelerated methods for income tax purposes. Estimated useful lives of the assets are as follows: buildings, 25-40 years; machinery and equipment, 4-10 years. Leased buildings and associated leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the terms of the lease or the estimated useful lives of the assets, with the amortization of such assets included within depreciation expense.

The cost of properties sold or otherwise disposed of and the accumulated depreciation thereon are eliminated from the accounts and the resulting gain or loss, as well as maintenance and repair expenses, are reflected in income. Replacements and improvements are capitalized.

Depreciation expense was approximately $10.6 million, $5.7 million and $4.4 million in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Buildings acquired under capital leases amounted to $12.7 million ($16.0 million, net of $3.3 million of accumulated amortization) and $6.4 million ($8.8 million, net of $2.4 million accumulated amortization) at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Future minimum lease payments associated with these capital leases are expected to be $1.8 million in 2015, $2.0 million in 2016, $2.2 million in 2017, $2.3 million in 2018 and $1.7 million in 2019.

Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived assets to be held and used are initially recorded at cost. The carrying value of these assets is evaluated for recoverability whenever adverse effects or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. Impairments are recognized if future undiscounted cash flows from operations are not expected to be sufficient to recover long-lived assets. The carrying amounts are then reduced to fair value, which is typically determined by using a discounted cash flow model.

Goodwill

The Company tests goodwill at the reporting unit level on an annual basis or more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. The Company has ten reporting units, however as of November 1, 2014 (the annual testing date), only seven reporting units have goodwill and were subject to the goodwill impairment test.

We may elect to perform a qualitative assessment that considers economic, industry and company-specific factors for all or selected reporting units. If, after completing the assessment, it is determined that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying value, we proceed to a quantitative test. We may also elect to perform a quantitative test instead of a qualitative test for any or all of our reporting units.

Quantitative testing requires a comparison of the fair value of each reporting unit to its carrying value. We use the discounted cash flow method to estimate the fair value of our reporting units. The discounted cash flow method incorporates various assumptions, the most significant being projected revenue growth rates, operating margins and cash flows, the terminal growth rate and the weighted average cost of capital. If the carrying value of the reporting unit exceeds its fair value, goodwill is considered impaired and any loss must be measured. To determine the amount of the impairment loss, the implied fair value of goodwill is determined by assigning a fair value to all of the reporting unit’s assets and liabilities, including any unrecognized intangible assets, as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination at fair value. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss would be recognized in an amount equal to that excess.

There were no impairment charges in 2014, 2013 or 2012.

Intangible Assets

Acquired intangibles are generally valued based upon future economic benefits such as earnings and cash flows. Acquired identifiable intangible assets are recorded at fair value and are amortized over their estimated useful lives. Acquired intangible assets with an indefinite life are not amortized, but are reviewed for impairment at least annually or more frequently whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of those assets are below their estimated fair values.

Impairment is tested under ASC 350, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other, as amended by Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2012-02, by first performing a qualitative analysis in a manner similar to the testing methodology of goodwill discussed previously. The qualitative factors applied under this new provision indicated no impairment to the Company’s indefinite lived intangible assets in 2014, 2013 and 2012.

- 37 -

Table of Contents

Financial Instruments

The Company’s financial instruments consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, notes payable and long-term debt. The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition and generally does not require collateral. The Company does not hold or issue financial instruments for trading purposes. Due to their short-term nature, the carrying values of cash and equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and notes payable approximate fair value. The carrying value of the Company’s variable rate long-term debt instruments also approximates fair value due to the variable rate feature of these instruments.

Derivatives

The accounting for changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the intended use and resulting designation. The Company’s use of derivative instruments was limited to cash flow hedges for interest rate risk associated with long-term debt. All such instruments were terminated in 2014. Interest rate swaps were used to adjust the proportion of total debt that is subject to variable and fixed interest rates. The interest rate swaps were designated as hedges of the amount of future cash flows related to interest payments on variable-rate debt that, in combination with the interest payments on the debt, converted a portion of the variable-rate debt to fixed-rate debt. The Company records all derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value. The related gains or losses, to the extent the derivatives are effective as a hedge, are deferred in shareholders’ equity as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (“AOCI”) and reclassified into earnings at the time interest expense is recognized on the associated long-term debt. Any ineffectiveness is recorded in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent liabilities and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Foreign Currency Translation

The Company accounts for its foreign currency translation in accordance with ASC Topic 830, Foreign Currency Translation. The aggregate transaction gain or loss included in operations was insignificant for 2014, 2013 and 2012.

Dividends

The Company has not paid any cash dividends in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014. It has no plans to pay cash dividends as it plans to retain all cash from operations as a source of capital to finance growth in the business.

Loss Contingencies

Loss contingencies may from time to time arise from situations such as claims and other legal actions. Loss contingencies are recorded as liabilities when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. Disclosure is required when there is a reasonable possibility that the ultimate loss will exceed the recorded provision. Contingent liabilities are often resolved over long time periods. In recording liabilities for probable losses, management is required to make estimates and judgments regarding the amount or range of the probable loss. Management continually assesses the adequacy of estimated loss contingencies and, if necessary, adjusts the amounts recorded as better information becomes known.

Acquisitions

The Company accounts for its acquisitions under ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations and Reorganizations (“ASC Topic 805”). ASC Topic 805 provides guidance on how the acquirer recognizes and measures the consideration transferred, identifiable assets acquired, liabilities assumed, non-controlling interests, and goodwill acquired in a business combination. ASC Topic 805 also expands required disclosures surrounding the nature and financial effects of business combinations. Acquisition costs are expensed as incurred. Acquisition expenses in 2014 and 2013 were approximately $0.3 million and $1.9 million, respectively. Acquisition expenses were insignificant in 2012. See Note 19 regarding the acquisitions in 2014, 2013 and 2012.

Newly Adopted and Recent Accounting Pronouncements

On January 1, 2014, the Company adopted the new provisions of ASU No. 2013-11, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists. The ASU requires the netting of unrecognized tax benefits against a deferred tax asset for a loss or other carryforward that would apply in settlement of the uncertain tax positions. Unrecognized tax benefits are required to be netted against all available same-jurisdiction loss or other tax carryforwards, rather than only against carryforwards that are created by the unrecognized tax benefits. This ASU did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

- 38 -

Table of Contents

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. This new standard is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and early adoption is not permitted. The comprehensive new standard will supersede existing revenue recognition guidance and require revenue to be recognized when promised goods or services are transferred to customers in amounts that reflect the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. Adoption of the new rules could affect the timing of revenue recognition for certain transactions. The guidance permits two implementation approaches, one requiring retrospective application of the new standard with restatement of prior years and one requiring prospective application of the new standard with disclosure of results under old standards. The Company is currently evaluating the impacts of adoption and the implementation approach to be used.

The Company’s management has reviewed recent accounting pronouncements issued through the date of the issuance of financial statements. In management’s opinion, none of these new pronouncements apply or will have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements

NOTE 2 — ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Accounts receivable at December 31 consists of:

NOTE 3 — INVENTORIES

Inventories at December 31 are as follows:

At December 31, 2014, the Company’s reserve for inventory valuation was $12.3 million, or 9.6% of gross inventory. At December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve for inventory valuation was $11.0 million, or 11.5% of gross inventory.

NOTE 4 — INTANGIBLE ASSETS

The following table summarizes acquired intangible assets as follows: