GOGO INC.

111 N. Canal St., Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60606

2018 PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider, and you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting.

Gogo Inc.’s 2018 Annual Meeting Information

Items of Business

Board Structure

Gogo Inc. (“Gogo” or the “Company”) currently has nine directors divided into three classes: two in Class I, four in Class II and three in Class III. The terms of office of the four Class II directors expire at the Annual Meeting.

Election of Class II Directors

The four nominees for election as Class II directors are listed below. If elected, the nominees for election as Class II directors will serve for a term of three years or until their successors are duly elected and qualified. If you sign and return the accompanying proxy, your shares will be voted for the election of the four Class II nominees recommended by the board of directors unless you choose to withhold authority to vote for any of the nominees. If any nominee for any reason is unable to serve or will not serve, your proxy may be voted for a substitute nominee designated by the board of directors as the proxy holders may determine. The board is not aware of any nominee who will be unable to or will not serve as a director. There is no cumulative voting.

In order to be elected, a nominee must receive a plurality of the votes validly cast at the Annual Meeting. Therefore, the four nominees who receive the most “FOR” votes (among votes properly cast in person or by proxy) will be elected. Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of nominees named. The Class II nominees are as follows:

2

Additional information about the four director nominees, as well as the Class I and Class III directors who will continue to serve after the Annual Meeting, is provided on page 11.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation

The board is asking you to vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers, often referred to as a “say-on-pay” advisory vote. While the advisory vote is not binding on our board of directors, the board and Compensation Committee will take into account the result of the vote when determining future executive compensation arrangements. For more information, see page 71.

Approval of the Amended and Restated Gogo Inc. 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan

The board is asking you to approve the Amended and Restated Gogo Inc. 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan. For more information, see page 73.

Ratification of the Appointment of the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The board is asking you to ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2018 fiscal year. For more information, see page  81.

2019 Annual Meeting

Pursuant to SEC Rule 14a-8, stockholder proposals submitted for inclusion in the proxy statement for our 2019 annual meeting of stockholders must be received by us by December 28, 2018. For more information, see page 82.

3

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE PROXY MATERIALS AND THE

ANNUAL MEETING

This proxy statement and proxy card are furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies to be voted at our annual meeting of stockholders, which will be held at 9:00 a.m. Central Time, on June 8, 2018, at Gogo’s corporate headquarters at 111 N. Canal St., Chicago, Illinois 60606 (the “Annual Meeting”). On April 27, 2018, we began mailing to stockholders of record either a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice”) or this proxy statement and proxy card.

Why am I receiving this proxy statement and proxy card?

You have received these proxy materials because our board of directors is soliciting your proxy to vote your shares at the Annual Meeting. This proxy statement describes issues on which we would like you to vote at our Annual Meeting. It also gives you information on these issues so that you can make an informed decision.

Because you own shares of our common stock, our board of directors has made this proxy statement and proxy card available to you on the Internet, in addition to delivering printed versions of this proxy statement and proxy card to certain stockholders by mail.

When you vote by using the Internet or (if you received your proxy card by mail) by signing and returning the proxy card, you appoint Marguerite M. Elias and Jenelle M. Chalmers (with full power of substitution) as your representatives at the Annual Meeting. They will vote your shares at the Annual Meeting as you have instructed or, if an issue that is not on the proxy card comes up for vote, in accordance with their best judgment. This way, your shares will be voted whether or not you attend the Annual Meeting. Even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we encourage you to vote in advance by using the Internet or (if you received your proxy card by mail) by signing and returning your proxy card. If you vote via the Internet, you do not need to return your proxy card.

Why did I receive a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials in the mail instead of a printed set of proxy materials?

Pursuant to rules adopted by the SEC, we are permitted to furnish our proxy materials over the Internet to our stockholders by delivering a Notice in the mail. If you received a Notice by mail, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials in the mail. Instead, the Notice instructs you on how to access and review the proxy statement and annual report over the Internet at www.proxyvote.com. The Notice also instructs you on how you may submit your proxy over the Internet. If you received a Notice by mail and would like to receive a printed copy of our proxy materials, you should follow the instructions for requesting these materials contained in the Notice.

4

Stockholders who receive a printed set of proxy materials will not receive the Notice, but may still access our proxy materials and submit their proxies over the Internet at www.proxyvote.com.

Who is entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting?

Holders of our common stock at the close of business on April 12, 2018 are entitled to vote. April 12, 2018 is referred to as the record date. In accordance with Delaware law, a list of stockholders entitled to vote at the meeting will be available in electronic form at the Annual Meeting site on June 8, 2018 and will be accessible in electronic form for ten days before the meeting at our principal place of business, 111 N. Canal St., Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60606, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time.

How many votes is each share of common stock entitled to?

Holders of common stock are entitled to one vote per share. On the record date, there were 87,207,013 shares of our common stock outstanding and entitled to vote.

How do I vote at the Annual Meeting?

Stockholders of record may vote by using the Internet or (if you received a proxy card by mail) by mail as described below. Stockholders also may attend the Annual Meeting and vote in person. If you hold shares through a bank or broker, please refer to your proxy card, Notice or other information forwarded by your bank or broker to see which voting options are available to you.

The method you use to vote will not limit your right to vote at the Annual Meeting if you decide to attend in person. Written ballots will be passed out to anyone who wants to vote at the Annual Meeting. If you hold your shares in “street name,” you must obtain a proxy, executed in your favor, from the holder of record to be able to vote in person at the Annual Meeting.

5

How do I change or revoke my proxy?

You may revoke your proxy and change your vote at any time before the polls close at the Annual Meeting. You may do this by:

If you hold shares through a bank or broker, please refer to your proxy card, Notice or other information forwarded by your bank or broker to see how you can revoke your proxy and change your vote.

Attendance at the Annual Meeting will not by itself revoke a proxy.

How many votes do you need to hold the Annual Meeting?

The presence, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of the votes entitled to be cast at the Annual Meeting will constitute a quorum. If a quorum is present, we can hold the Annual Meeting and conduct business.

On what items am I voting?

You are being asked to vote on four items:

No cumulative voting rights are authorized, and dissenters’ rights are not applicable to these matters.

How does the board of directors recommend that I vote?

The board recommends that you vote as follows:

6

How may I vote in the election of directors, and how many votes must the nominees receive to be elected?

With respect to the election of directors, you may:

The Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”) provide for the election of directors by a plurality of the votes cast. This means that the four individuals nominated for election to the board of directors who receive the most “FOR” votes (among votes properly cast in person or by proxy) will be elected.

What happens if a nominee is unable to stand for election?

If a nominee is unable to stand for election, the board may either:

If the board designates a substitute nominee, shares represented by proxies voted for the nominee who is unable to stand for election will be voted for the substitute nominee.

How may I vote for the non-binding advisory vote approving executive compensation, and how many votes must this proposal receive to pass?

With respect to this proposal, you may:

7

In order to pass, the proposal must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes entitled to be cast at the Annual Meeting by the holders of common stock who are present in person or by proxy. In accordance with applicable law, this vote is “advisory,” meaning it will serve as a recommendation to our board of directors, but will not be binding. However, our Compensation Committee will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for our executive officers. If you abstain from voting on the proposal or your broker is unable to vote your shares, it will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.

How may I vote for the proposal to approve the Amended and Restated Gogo Inc. 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan, and how many votes must this proposal receive to pass?

With respect to this proposal, you may:

In order to pass, the proposal must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes entitled to be cast at the Annual Meeting by the holders of common stock who are present in person or by proxy. If you abstain from voting on the proposal or your broker is unable to vote your shares, it will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.

How may I vote for the proposal to ratify the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm, and how many votes must this proposal receive to pass?

With respect to this proposal, you may:

In order to pass, the proposal must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes entitled to be cast at the Annual Meeting by the holders of common stock who are present in person or by proxy. If you abstain from voting on the proposal or your broker is unable to vote your shares, it will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.

What happens if I sign and return my proxy card but do not provide voting instructions?

If you return a signed card but do not provide voting instructions, your shares will be voted as follows:

8

Will my shares be voted if I do not vote by using the Internet or by signing and returning my proxy card?

If you do not vote by using the Internet or (if you received a proxy card by mail) by signing and returning your proxy card, then your shares will not be voted and will not count in deciding the matters presented for stockholder consideration at the Annual Meeting.

If your shares are held in street name through a bank or broker, your bank or broker may vote your shares under certain limited circumstances if you do not provide voting instructions before the Annual Meeting, in accordance with the Nasdaq rules that govern the banks and brokers. These circumstances include voting your shares on “routine matters,” such as the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accountants described in this proxy statement. With respect to this proposal, therefore, if you do not vote your shares, your bank or broker may vote your shares on your behalf or leave your shares unvoted.

The election of directors, the non-binding advisory vote approving executive compensation and the approval of the Amended and Restated Gogo Inc. 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan are not considered routine matters under the Nasdaq rules relating to voting by banks and brokers. When a proposal is not a routine matter and the brokerage firm has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares with respect to that proposal, the brokerage firm cannot vote the shares on that proposal. This is called a “broker non-vote.” Broker non-votes that are represented at the Annual Meeting will be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum, but not for determining the number of shares voted for or against the non-routine matter.

We encourage you to provide instructions to your bank or brokerage firm by voting your proxy. This action ensures your shares will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with your wishes.

9

What is the vote required for each proposal to pass, and what is the effect of abstentions or withheld votes and uninstructed shares on the proposals?

The following table summarizes the board’s recommendation on each proposal, the vote required for each proposal to pass and the effect of abstentions or withheld votes and uninstructed shares on each proposal.

What do I need to show to attend the Annual Meeting in person?

You will need proof of your share ownership (such as a recent brokerage statement or letter from your broker showing that you owned shares of Gogo Inc. common stock as of April 12, 2018 if you hold your shares through a broker) and a form of government-issued photo identification. If you do not have proof of ownership and valid photo identification, you may not be admitted to the Annual Meeting. All bags, briefcases and packages will be held at registration and will not be allowed in the meeting.

Can I receive future proxy materials and annual reports electronically?

Yes. You may access this proxy statement and the annual report by accessing the website located at www.proxyvote.com. Instead of receiving future proxy materials in the mail, you can elect to receive an email that provides a link to our future annual reports and proxy materials on the Internet. Opting to receive your proxy materials electronically will save us the cost of producing and mailing documents to your home or business, will reduce the environmental impact of our annual meetings, and will give you an automatic link to the proxy voting site.

If you are a stockholder of record and wish to enroll in the electronic proxy delivery service for future meetings, you may do so by going to www.proxyvote.com and following the prompts.

10

DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The following sections provide an overview of our corporate governance structure and processes. Among other topics, we describe how we select directors, how we consider the independence of our directors and key aspects of our board operations.

The Company’s Bylaws provide that the board of directors shall consist of not fewer than three nor more than 11 directors, with the exact number to be fixed by the board of directors. The board of directors has fixed the current number of directors at 11, and there are currently two vacancies.

The Company’s Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate of Incorporation”) divides the board into three classes, as nearly equal in number as possible, with the terms of office of the directors of each class ending in different years. Class I currently has two directors, Class II currently has four directors and Class III currently has three directors. The terms of directors in Classes I, II and III end at the annual meetings in 2020, 2018 and 2019, respectively.

At each annual meeting of the stockholders, the successors of the directors whose term expires at that meeting are elected to hold office for a term expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders held in the third year following the year of their election. The board of directors is therefore asking you to elect the four nominees for director whose term expires at the Annual Meeting. Ronald T. LeMay, Michele Coleman Mayes, Robert H. Mundheim and Harris N. Williams, our current Class II directors, have been nominated for reelection at the Annual Meeting. See “Proposal 1: Election of Directors” on page 70.

Directors are elected by a plurality. Therefore, the four nominees who receive the most “FOR” votes will be elected. Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of nominees named. There is no cumulative voting. If you sign and return the accompanying proxy card, your shares will be voted for the election of the four nominees

11

recommended by the board of directors unless you choose to withhold your vote against any or all of the nominees. If any nominee for any reason is unable to serve or will not serve, proxies may be voted for such substitute nominee as the proxy holders may determine. The Company is not aware of any nominee who will be unable to or will not serve as a director.

Biographical information for each nominee and continuing director is set forth below. We have also identified for each individual the business experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that underlie the board of directors’ and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s belief that each individual is a valuable member of the board of directors. The persons who have been nominated for election and are to be voted upon at the Annual Meeting are listed first, with continuing directors following thereafter.

Class II Nominees

Ronald T. LeMay has served as Chairman and CEO of Main Street Data, Inc. (an advanced analytics company) and Aquarius Solutions, Inc. (an asset utilization company) since January 2017, and as Managing Director of OpenAir Equity Partners (a venture capital firm formed to make early stage investments in wireless companies) since September 2008. In addition, Mr. LeMay has served as Chairman of the Board of October Capital (a private investment company) since February 2001 and Razorback Capital (a private investment company) since August 2006 and as a director of Zubie, Inc. from May 2016 to present and Hyla, Inc. from September 2010 to present. Previously, Mr. LeMay served as Representative Executive Officer of Japan Telecom from November 2003 until the sale of the company in July 2004 and as President and Chief Operating Officer of Sprint Corporation from October 1997 until April 2003. Mr. LeMay was a director of Imation from July 1996 (except for the period from August 5, 1997 to December 31, 1997) until his retirement from the board in May 2012 and was a director of Allstate Corporation until he retired from the board in May 2014. Mr. LeMay has served as the Chairman of our board of directors since July 2006. He served as our Executive Chairman from July 2006 to June 2013, except during the period from July 2009 to February 2010, during which he served as our Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. LeMay’s qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

Michele Coleman Mayes currently serves as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the New York Public Library (NYPL). She joined NYPL in August 2012 after serving as Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Allstate Insurance Company since 2007. Prior to Allstate, she served as a Senior Vice President and the General Counsel of Pitney Bowes Inc. from 2003 to 2007 and in several legal capacities at Colgate-Palmolive from 1992 to 2003. In 1982, Ms. Mayes entered the corporate sector as managing attorney of

12

Burroughs Corporation. After Burroughs and Sperry Corporation merged, creating Unisys Corporation, she was appointed Staff Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Worldwide Litigation. From 1976 through 1982, she served in the U.S. Department of Justice as an Assistant United States Attorney in Detroit and Brooklyn, eventually assuming the role of Chief of the Civil Division in Detroit. She chaired the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession from 2014 to 2017 and is a Fellow of the American College of Corporate Governance Counsel. Ms. Mayes served as a director of Assurant, Inc. from 2004 to 2007, where she also served as a member of the Audit Committee and Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee.

Ms. Mayes’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

Robert H. Mundheim has been Of Counsel to Shearman & Sterling LLP since 2000. Since 2012, Mr. Mundheim has also served as a Professor of Corporate Law and Finance at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. From 1992 to 1999, Mr. Mundheim was Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Salomon Inc. and Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc., and prior to that, he was Co-Chairman of the New York law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP and University Professor of Law and Finance at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he taught since 1965 and served as Dean from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Mundheim has also served as General Counsel to the U.S. Treasury Department, Special Counsel to the Securities and Exchange Commission and Vice Chairman, Governor-at-Large and a member of the Executive Committee of the National Association of Securities Dealers. He previously served as Chairman of the board of directors of Quadra Realty Trust, Inc. and as a director of Weeden & Co. LP, eCollege.com, Benjamin Moore & Co., Commerce Clearing House Inc., Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder Holdings, Inc., Hypo Real Estate Holding AG and First Pennsylvania Bank. Mr. Mundheim currently serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of the New School and the Board of Trustees of the Curtis Institute of Music, a Trustee of the American College of Corporate Governance Counsel and a director of the Salzburg Global Seminar.

Mr. Mundheim’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

Harris N. Williams serves as Senior Managing Director of WF Holding Company LLC, a diversified asset management business. From 2005 to 2013, Mr. Williams was an

13

executive with Ripplewood Holdings, LLC, a global private equity firm focused on control investments, serving as Managing Director since 2007. Prior to 2005, Mr. Williams was in the Investment Banking division of Credit Suisse, primarily focused on mergers and acquisitions and leveraged buyouts. Mr. Williams’s industry areas of focus have included Technology, Media, Financial Services, Healthcare, Industrials and Hospitality on a global basis. Mr. Williams served on the board of directors of 3W Power Holdings Ltd. from 2011 to 2013, where he also served as Chairman of the Audit Committee.

Mr. Williams’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

Continuing Directors

Class I Directors – Terms Expiring at the 2020 Annual Meeting:

Hugh W. Jones is a co-founder of Basalt Investments, LLC. Mr. Jones previously served as President of Sabre Airline Solutions from April 2011 to August 2017. From 1996 to 2011, Mr. Jones held a number of other executive positions at Sabre including COO of Sabre Travel Network and Airline Solutions. Mr. Jones previously served as the president and CEO of Travelocity. He began his career in the travel industry at American Airlines in 1988, serving in a variety of finance positions.

Mr. Jones’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

Oakleigh Thorne has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer since March 4, 2018. Mr. Thorne also serves as the CEO of Thorndale Farm, L.L.C., which oversees investment of Thorne family assets. From 1996 to 2009, Mr. Thorne served as the Co-President of Blumenstein/Thorne Information Partners, L.L.C., a private equity and venture capital firm. From 2000 to 2007, Mr. Thorne served as Chairman and CEO of eCollege.com, a then-publicly traded provider of outsourced eLearning solutions, and he previously served as CEO of Commerce Clearing House Inc. and as a director of ShopperTrak and MachineryLink. Mr. Thorne currently serves as a director of Helix Education, Inc., in addition to various charitable organizations. Mr. Thorne served as a member of the board of directors of Aircell, our predecessor company, from 2003 until January 2007.

Mr. Thorne’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

14

Class III Directors – Terms Expiring at the 2019 Annual Meeting:

Robert L. Crandall is the former chairman and CEO of AMR Corporation and American Airlines. From 1998 to 2012, Mr. Crandall served on the board of directors of Celestica Inc. Mr. Crandall served as a member of the board of directors of Aircell, our predecessor company, from 2003 until January 2007.

Mr. Crandall’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

Christopher D. Payne has served as the Chief Operating Officer of DoorDash Inc. since January 2016. Mr. Payne was formerly the CEO of Tinder, Inc. from March 2015 to September 2015, the Senior Vice President, North American Marketplaces of eBay Inc. from September 2010 to December 2014 and the founder and CEO of Positronic, Inc. from July 2007 until December 2008, when it was sold to eBay. Mr. Payne previously served as a Vice President at Amazon from 1998 to 2001 and a Vice President at Microsoft from 2001 to 2007. Mr. Payne also was on the board of directors of Rue La La from July 2011 to October 2013.

Mr. Payne’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

Charles C. Townsend currently serves as Managing General Partner of Bluewater Wireless II, L.P. Mr. Townsend founded Aloha Partners LP in 2001 and served as its Managing General Partner until 2008. Mr. Townsend also served as the Managing General Partner of Aloha Partners II from 2006 to 2014. From 1988 to 1998, Mr. Townsend served as President and CEO of the Atlantic Cellular Company. Since January 2004, Mr. Townsend has also served as President of Pac 3, LLC.

Mr. Townsend’s specific qualifications, experience, skills and expertise include:

15

Selecting Nominees for Director

Our board has delegated to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee the responsibility for reviewing and recommending to the board nominees for director. In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, in evaluating director candidates, recommends to the board appropriate criteria for the selection of new directors based on the strategic needs of the Company and the board, periodically reviews the criteria adopted by the board and, if deemed desirable, recommends changes to such criteria.

The board values diversity, in its broadest sense, reflecting, but not limited to, profession, geography, gender, ethnicity, skills and experience, and when conducting a search endeavors to include individuals who would add diversity to the board, including women and minority candidates, in the qualified pool from which board candidates are chosen. From time to time, stockholders, prospective candidates or other third parties may present an individual to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for consideration, in which case the board may, if such individual meets the criteria for membership and is expected to make significant contributions to the Company, elect such individual to the board without conducting a search.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for recommending to the board nominees for election to the board at each annual meeting of stockholders and for identifying one or more candidates to fill any vacancies that may occur on the board. New candidates may be identified through recommendations from independent directors or members of management, search firms, discussions with other persons who may know of suitable candidates to serve on the board, and stockholder recommendations. Evaluations of prospective candidates typically include a review of the candidates’ background and qualifications by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, interviews with the Committee as a whole, one or more members of the Committee, or one or more other board members, and discussions within the Committee and the full board. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee then recommends candidates to the full board, with the full board selecting the candidates to be nominated for election by the stockholders or to be elected by the board to fill a vacancy.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidates proposed by stockholders as well as recommendations from other sources. Any stockholder who wishes to recommend a prospective candidate for the board of directors for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may do so by submitting the name and qualifications of the prospective candidate in writing to the following address: Corporate Secretary, 111 N. Canal St., Suite 1500, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Any such submission should also describe the experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that make the prospective candidate a suitable nominee for the board of directors. Our Bylaws set forth the requirements for direct nomination of an individual by a stockholder for election to the board of directors.

16

Director Independence

Under the Nasdaq listing standards, independent directors must comprise a majority of a listed company’s board of directors. In addition, the listing standards of Nasdaq require that, subject to specified exceptions, each member of a listed company’s audit, compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees be independent. In order to consider a director independent, the board of directors must affirmatively determine that he or she has no material relationship with Gogo Inc. and is independent under the independence criteria for directors established by Nasdaq, Rule 10A-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the independence criteria adopted by the board of directors. The independence criteria adopted by the board are set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

The board undertook an annual review of director independence in April 2018. As part of this review, the board considered whether there were any relationships between each director or any member of his or her immediate family and the Company. The board also examined whether there were any relationships between an organization of which a director is a partner, stockholder or executive officer and the Company. The purpose of this review was to determine whether any such relationships were inconsistent with a determination that a director is independent. As a result of this review, the board affirmatively determined that the following directors are independent directors: Robert Crandall, Hugh Jones, Ronald T. LeMay, Michele Coleman Mayes, Robert Mundheim, Christopher Payne, Charles Townsend and Harris Williams. Accordingly, eight of our nine directors are independent, and all directors serving on the Audit Committee satisfy the independence requirements of Nasdaq and the SEC relating to directors and audit committee members.

Executive Sessions of Our Non-Management Directors

The Chairman of the Board and the full board each have authority to require the board to meet in executive sessions outside the presence of management. The independent directors meet at regularly scheduled executive sessions without management not less frequently than once per quarter.

Board Leadership Structure

As noted in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the board has no policy with respect to the separation of the offices of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The board believes it is important to retain its flexibility to allocate the responsibilities of the offices of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in any way that is in the best interests of the Company at a given point in time. Mr. LeMay, an independent director, currently serves as the Chairman of our board of directors.

17

Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

Our board is responsible for overseeing our risk management. Under its charter, the Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing and discussing our risk management practices, including the effectiveness of the systems and policies for risk assessment and risk management, the major financial risk exposures and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures, any unusual material transactions and management, internal auditor and independent auditor reviews regarding policies, procedures and monitoring related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption statutes. The Audit Committee also oversees our corporate compliance and ethics programs, as well as the internal audit function. The board’s other independent committees oversee risks associated with their respective areas of responsibility. For example, the Compensation Committee considers the risks associated with our compensation policies and practices, with respect to both executive compensation and compensation generally. In addition to the committees’ work in overseeing risk management, our full board regularly engages in discussions of the most significant risks that the Company is facing and how these risks are being managed, and the board receives reports on risk management from senior officers of the Company and from the committee chairs. The board reviews periodic assessments obtained from the Company’s ongoing enterprise risk management process that are designed to identify potential events that may affect the achievement of the Company’s objectives.

The Company’s executive officers, including the General Counsel and Secretary, report directly to our Chief Executive Officer, providing him with visibility into the Company’s risk profile. The head of the Company’s internal audit function regularly reports to the Audit Committee, and each of the General Counsel and head of internal audit have regularly scheduled private sessions with the Audit Committee. The board of directors believes that the work undertaken by the committees of the board, together with the work of the full board of directors and our management, enables the board of directors to effectively oversee the Company’s risk management function.

Corporate Governance Guidelines, Committee Charters and Code of Business Conduct

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on the corporate governance section of our investor relations website at www.ir.gogoair.com. The written charters for each of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees also are available on the corporate governance section of our investor relations website at www.ir.gogoair.com.

We have a long-standing commitment to conduct our business in accordance with high ethical principles. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applies to our directors, chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief accounting officer and all other officers and employees. Our Code of Financial Ethics applies to our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief accounting officer and any other key employees performing finance or accounting functions. Copies of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the Code of Financial Ethics may also be accessed on the corporate governance section of our investor relations website at www.ir.gogoair.com.

18

Committees of the Board

Our board of directors has three committees: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The following table shows the current members of each committee and the number of meetings held during fiscal 2017.

   ✓= current committee member; * = chair

Audit Committee. Our Audit Committee is responsible, among its other duties and responsibilities, for overseeing our accounting and financial reporting processes, the audits of our financial statements, the qualifications and independence of our independent registered public accounting firm, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and the performance of our internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm. Our Audit Committee reviews and assesses the qualitative aspects of our financial reporting, our processes for managing business and financial risks, and our compliance with legal, ethical and regulatory requirements. Our Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of our independent registered public accounting firm.

During fiscal 2017, the Audit Committee held six meetings. The Audit Committee is currently composed of Messrs. Williams (chair), Crandall and Jones and Ms. Mayes. Each member of our Audit Committee meets the Nasdaq independence requirements, is financially literate, and is an independent director under Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. Our board has determined that Mr. Crandall is an audit committee financial expert as defined by the SEC.

Compensation Committee. Our Compensation Committee is responsible, among its other duties and responsibilities, for reviewing and approving all forms of compensation to be provided to, and employment agreements with, the executive officers and directors of the Company and its subsidiaries (including the Chief Executive Officer), establishing the general

19

compensation policies of the Company and its subsidiaries and reviewing, approving and overseeing the administration of the employee benefits plans of the Company and its subsidiaries. Our Compensation Committee also periodically reviews development and succession plans for executive officers.

During fiscal 2017, the Compensation Committee held four meetings. The Compensation Committee was composed of Messrs. Mundheim (chair), Townsend, Crandall and Thorne during 2017. On March 4, 2018, Mr. Thorne resigned from the Compensation Committee and Mr. Jones was appointed as a member of the Compensation Committee. Each member of our Compensation Committee meets the Nasdaq independence requirements and is an outside director under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. If all directors serving on the Compensation Committee do not meet the “non-employee director” requirements of SEC Rule 16b-3, the Compensation Committee will delegate to a special Section 16b-3 subcommittee consisting of those Compensation Committee members who meet such requirements the authority to approve grants of equity-based compensation subject to Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. In 2014, the Compensation Committee delegated to a Rule 16b-3 subcommittee, consisting of Messrs. Mundheim and Townsend, the authority to approve equity grants to our executive officers for purposes of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. The Compensation Committee also from time to time delegates authority to our Chief Executive Officer to approve equity grants to non-executive officers and other employees.

The Compensation Committee retained Compensation Strategies, Inc. during 2017 to provide executive compensation consulting services. Compensation Strategies, Inc. reports directly to the Compensation Committee, and does not provide any other services to the Company. After a review of the applicable factors prescribed by the SEC and Nasdaq, the Company determined that Compensation Strategies, Inc. is independent.

For additional information about the Compensation Committee’s processes and the role of executive officers and compensation consultants in determining compensation, see “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible, among its other duties and responsibilities, for identifying and recommending candidates for election to our board (including candidates proposed by stockholders), reviewing the composition of the board and its committees, developing corporate governance guidelines and recommending them to the board for approval, and managing the board’s annual self-evaluation process.

During fiscal 2017, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee held four meetings. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee was composed of Messrs. Thorne (chair) and Mundheim during fiscal 2017. On March 4, 2018, Mr. Thorne resigned from the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Ms. Mayes was appointed chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meets the Nasdaq independence requirements.

20

Meetings of the Board of Directors and Attendance at the Annual Meeting

Our board of directors held nine meetings during fiscal 2017. Each of our directors attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the board and any committees of which he/she was a member during the time in which such director served on the board or any committee. It is the board’s policy that our directors attend our annual meetings. All members of the board serving as directors at the time of the 2017 annual meeting attended the 2017 annual meeting.

Plurality Voting for Directors and Director Resignation Policy

The Company’s Bylaws provide for the election of directors by a plurality of the votes cast. This means that the four individuals nominated for election to the board of directors who receive the most “FOR” votes (among votes properly cast in person or by proxy) will be elected. In addition, it is the Company’s policy that if (i) a director ceases to be employed by his or her principal employer, commences employment with a new employer or, while remaining employed by the same employer, undergoes a significant change in his or her position or employment responsibilities, (ii) an independent director ceases to qualify as such, or (iii) a nominee for director, in an uncontested election of directors, receives a greater number of votes “withheld” from his or her election than votes “for” his or her election, the affected director will be required to promptly tender to the board his or her resignation as director. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider the tendered resignation and recommend to the board whether to accept or reject the resignation, and the board will make such determination, based on a review of whether the individual continues to satisfy the board’s membership criteria and any other matters that the board may consider relevant to its determination.

Succession Planning and Management Development

We are focused on talent development at all levels within our organization. Among the Compensation Committee’s key responsibilities is to ensure that management establishes and the Committee oversees an effective executive succession plan. The board regularly reviews the succession plans that support our overall business strategy, with a focus on key positions at the senior officer level. The board recognizes that succession planning and talent management are closely connected to risk management. Potential leaders are given exposure and visibility to board members through formal presentations and informal events. More broadly, the board is regularly updated on key talent indicators for the overall workforce, including through diversity, recruiting and development programs.

Security Ownership Policies

The Company prohibits directors and employees, including executive officers, from engaging in short sales and trading in publicly traded options of securities of the Company and

21

its affiliates. The Company’s policies also prohibit hedging transactions involving securities of the Company and its affiliates, unless approved by the General Counsel. The Company further requires that pledges by directors and executive officers of securities of the Company or its affiliates made after April 2018 be approved in advance by the board or a committee designated by the board.

Executive Officers

Our executive officers are designated by, and serve at the discretion of, our board of directors. There are no family relationships among any of our directors or executive officers. Our executive officers are as follows:

Mr. Thorne’s biography and related information may be found above in the section titled “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—Continuing Directors.” The following is biographical information for our other executive officers:

Anand K. Chari joined Aircell, Inc. in 2003 as a consultant. From July 2006 to July 2011, he served as Vice President of Engineering. In July 2011, he became our Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President, Engineering, and in February 2013, he was promoted to Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer. Effective May 1, 2018, Mr. Chari will step down from his positions as Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of the Company and become our Strategic Technology Advisor. Prior to joining Aircell, Mr. Chari founded and served as President of Simma Technologies Inc., a technology and management consulting company. He also served as Vice President of Sales and Business Development at ISCO International, Director of Business Development at 3Com, Director of Advanced Technology at Ameritech, and Manager at Telephone and Data Systems. Mr. Chari received his Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Chicago, his Master of Science degree in Computer Engineering from Iowa

22

State University, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering from the National Institutes of Technology, Trichy, India.

Jonathan B. Cobin joined us in April 2010. In January 2017, Mr. Cobin became our Chief Commercial Officer. Effective May 1, 2018, Mr. Cobin will become our Chief Strategy Officer and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development. From September 2003 to January 2010, Mr. Cobin was employed by Centennial Communications, a regional telecommunications service provider, principally in the role of Vice President Strategic Planning. Previously, Mr. Cobin held positions of increasing responsibility as a strategy consultant at Dean & Company and in the investment banking group at J.P. Morgan. He received his Master’s degree in Business Administration from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business and a Bachelor of Arts from Dartmouth College.

Marguerite M. Elias joined us in September 2007. From June 2004 until July 2007, Ms. Elias served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of eCollege.com, a publicly traded provider of outsourced eLearning solutions, where she was responsible for all legal and compliance issues, managed the human resources function and was a member of senior management. Ms. Elias was in private practice for 15 years at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Katten Muchin Rosenman, where she specialized in federal securities law, corporate finance, and mergers and acquisitions for clients across a broad spectrum of industries. Since 2007, Ms. Elias has served on the board of directors of Helix Education, Inc. She is a member of the American Law Institute. Ms. Elias received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Northwestern University and a Juris Doctor from Loyola University of Chicago School of Law.

Barry Rowan joined us as Executive Vice President, Finance in April 2017 and in May 2017 he became our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Rowan previously served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cool Planet Energy Systems from March 2013 to April 2017, as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer for Vonage Corporation from 2010 to 2013, and as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for Nextel Partners from 2003 to 2006. Mr. Rowan earned his Master’s degree in Business Administration from the Harvard Business School and his Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and Chemical Biology summa cum laude from The College of Idaho.

John Wade joined us in November 2008. In August 2016, Mr. Wade became our Chief Operating Officer. Effective May 1, 2018, Mr. Wade will become our President, Commercial Aviation Division. Prior to joining Gogo, Mr. Wade served as Chief Technical Officer and General Manager of in-flight mobile phone and internet provider, OnAir, from February 2005 to November 2008. He was responsible for OnAir’s internet business, including sales, strategy, customer relationship management and product development. Mr. Wade has more than 20 years of experience in the avionics and in-flight communications industries, having also held positions at in-flight internet and connectivity services provider Tenzing Communications, as well as PRIMEX Aerospace Company and GEC Marconi In-Flight Systems. Mr. Wade received his education at the University of Brighton, U.K., where he earned a First Class B Engineering Honors Degree in Electronic Engineering.

23

Michael Bayer joined us in June 2015. From February 2013 to March 2015, Mr. Bayer served as Vice President and Corporate Controller at JMC Steel Group, Inc., an independent steel pipe and tube manufacturer. Prior to that, he worked in various accounting and financial reporting roles, including as Assistant Controller and Controller of Motorola Mobility, Inc. from 2010 to 2013 and as Director of Accounting at Exelon Corporation from 2004 to 2009. Mr. Bayer is a Certified Public Accountant and received his Bachelor’s degree in Accounting from Miami University.

Karen Jackson joined us in February 2015. From November 2011 to January 2015, Ms. Jackson served as SVP, Human Resources of Acquity Group, a digital and marketing services firm acquired by Accenture, where she was responsible for the HR function and talent strategy across the business. From November 2009 to November 2011, Ms. Jackson held the position of VP, Corporate Strategy at Acquity Group, where she was responsible for driving Acquity Group’s growth initiatives. She received her Master’s degree in Business Administration from the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University and a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Policies and Procedures for Related Person Transactions

We have adopted a written related person transactions policy pursuant to which our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders, including their immediate family members, will not be permitted to enter into a related person transaction with us without the consent of our Audit Committee. Any proposed transaction between the Company and an executive officer, director, principal stockholder or any of such persons’ immediate family members, in which the amount involved exceeds $120,000, must be presented to our Audit Committee for review, consideration and approval. Our directors, executive officers and employees are required to report any proposed related person transaction to our Audit Committee. In approving or rejecting the proposed transaction, our Audit Committee will take into account, among other factors it deems appropriate, whether the proposed related person transaction is on terms no less favorable than terms generally available to an unaffiliated third party under the same or similar circumstances, the extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction and, if applicable, the impact on a director’s independence. Under the policy, if we discover any related person transaction that has not been properly approved, our Audit Committee will be notified and will determine the appropriate action, including ratification, rescission or amendment of the transaction.

Related Person Transactions

Registration Rights Agreement

On December 31, 2009, we entered into a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with certain of our stockholders, including certain entities affiliated with Oakleigh Thorne. The following description of the terms of the Registration

24

Rights Agreement is intended as a summary only and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Registration Rights Agreement filed as an exhibit to our 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The registration of shares of our common stock pursuant to the exercise of registration rights described below would enable the holders to trade these shares without restriction under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), when the applicable registration statement is declared effective. We will pay the registration expenses, other than underwriting discounts and commissions and certain counsel or advisor fees as described therein, of the shares registered pursuant to the demand and piggyback registrations described below.

The demand and piggyback registration rights described below commenced 180 days after the closing of our initial public offering on June 26, 2013 and continue perpetually. We are not required to effect more than two demand registrations in any twelve-month period or any demand registration within 180 days following the date of effectiveness of any other registration statement. If the board of directors (or an authorized committee thereof), in its reasonable good faith judgment determines that the filing of a registration statement will materially affect a significant transaction or would force the Company to disclose confidential information which is adverse to the Company’s interest, then the board of directors may delay a required registration filing for periods of up to 90 days, so long as the periods do not aggregate to more than 120 days in a twelve-month period. Generally, in an underwritten offering, the managing underwriter has the right, subject to specified conditions, to limit the number of shares such holders may include.

Demand Registration Rights. Under the terms of the Registration Rights Agreement, stockholders that are a party to the agreement may, under certain circumstances and provided they meet certain thresholds described in the Registration Rights Agreement, make a written request to us for the registration of the offer and sale of all or part of the shares subject to such registration rights (“Registrable Securities”). If we are eligible to file a registration statement on Form S-3 or any successor form with similar “short-form” disclosure requirements, the holders of Registrable Securities may make a written request to us for the registration of the offer and sale of all or part of the Registrable Securities provided that the Registrable Securities to be registered under such short-form registration have an aggregate market value, based upon the offering price to the public, equal to at least $15.0 million.

Piggyback Registration Rights. If we register the offer and sale of any of our securities (other than a registration statement relating to an initial public offering or on Form S-4 or S-8 or any successor form for securities to be offered in a transaction of the type referred to in Rule 145 under the Securities Act or to employees of the Company pursuant to any employee benefit plan, respectively) either on our behalf or on the behalf of other security holders, the holders of the Registrable Securities under the Registration Rights Agreement are entitled to include their Registrable Securities in the registration subject to certain exceptions relating to employee benefit plans and mergers and acquisitions. The managing underwriters of any underwritten offering may limit the number of Registrable Securities included in the underwritten offering if the underwriters believe that including these shares would have a

25

materially adverse effect on the offering. If the number of Registrable Securities is limited by the managing underwriter, the securities to be included first in the registration will depend on whether we or certain holders of our securities initiate the piggyback registration. If we initiate the piggyback registration, we are required to include in the offering (i) first, the securities we propose to sell and (ii) second, the Registrable Securities requested to be included in such registration, pro rata among the holders of such Registrable Securities on the basis of the number of Registrable Securities owned by each such holder. If the holder of Registrable Securities initiates the piggyback registration, it is required to include in the offering (i) first, the Registrable Securities requested to be included in such registration, pro rata among the holders of such Registrable Securities on the basis of the number of Registrable Securities owned by each such holder and (ii) second, the securities we propose to sell.

Indemnification Agreements

Our Certificate of Incorporation contains provisions permitted under the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to the liability of directors. These provisions eliminate a director’s personal liability to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law for monetary damages resulting from a breach of fiduciary duty, except in circumstances involving any breach of the director’s duty of loyalty, acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, under Section 174 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (unlawful dividends), or any transaction from which the director derives an improper personal benefit. The principal effect of the limitation on liability provision is that a stockholder will be unable to prosecute an action for monetary damages against a director unless the stockholder can demonstrate a basis for liability for which indemnification is not available under the Delaware General Corporation Law. These provisions, however, should not limit or eliminate our rights or any stockholder’s rights to seek non-monetary relief, such as an injunction or rescission, in the event of a breach of a director’s fiduciary duty. These provisions will not alter a director’s liability under federal securities laws. The inclusion of this provision in our Certificate of Incorporation may discourage or deter stockholders or management from bringing a lawsuit against directors for a breach of their fiduciary duties, even though such an action, if successful, might otherwise have benefited us and our stockholders.

Our Bylaws require us to indemnify and advance expenses to our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law and other applicable law, except in certain cases of a proceeding instituted by the director or officer without the approval of our board. Our Bylaws provide that we are required to indemnify our directors and executive officers, to the fullest extent permitted by law, for all judgments, fines, settlements, legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with pending or threatened legal proceedings because of the director’s or officer’s positions with us or another entity that the director or officer serves at our request, subject to various conditions, and to advance funds to our directors and officers to enable them to defend against such proceedings.

26

We have also entered into an indemnification agreement with each of our directors and executive officers. The indemnification agreements provide our directors and executive officers with contractual rights to the indemnification and expense advancement rights provided under our Bylaws, as well as contractual rights to additional indemnification as provided in the indemnification agreements.

Communications with the Board

Stockholders who wish to contact our board may send written correspondence, in care of the Corporate Secretary, to 111 N. Canal St., Suite 1500, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Communications may be addressed to an individual director, to the non-management directors as a group, or to the board as a whole. Communications not submitted confidentially that discuss business or other matters relevant to the activities of our board will be preliminarily reviewed by the office of the Secretary and then distributed either in summary form or by delivering a copy of the communication. Communications marked as confidential will be distributed, without review by the office of the Secretary, to the director, or group of directors, to whom they are addressed. With respect to other correspondence received by the Company that is addressed to one or more directors, the board has requested that the following items not be distributed to directors, because they generally fall into the purview of management, rather than the board: junk mail and mass mailings, product and services complaints, product and services inquiries, résumés and other forms of job inquiries, solicitations for charitable donations, surveys, business solicitations and advertisements.

27

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table indicates information as of March 31, 2018 regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock by:

In accordance with SEC rules, beneficial ownership includes sole or shared voting or investment power with respect to securities and includes the shares issuable pursuant to stock options that are exercisable within 60 days of the determination date, which in the case of the following table is March 31, 2018. Shares issuable pursuant to those stock options are deemed outstanding for computing the percentage of the person holding such options but are not deemed outstanding for computing the percentage of any other person. Under these rules, more than one person may be a deemed beneficial owner of the same securities and a person may be deemed a beneficial owner of securities in which such person has no economic interest. Unless otherwise indicated, the persons or entities identified in this table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to applicable community property laws.

The percentage of beneficial ownership is based on 87,207,013 shares of our common stock outstanding as of March 31, 2018.

Information with respect to beneficial ownership has been furnished by each director, officer, or beneficial owner of more than 5% of the shares of our common stock. Except as otherwise noted below, the address for each person listed on the table is c/o Gogo Inc., 111 N. Canal St., Suite 1500, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

28

29

30

SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than 10% of a registered class of the Company’s equity securities, to file with the SEC initial reports and reports of change in ownership in the Company’s common stock and other equity securities. Officers, directors and greater than 10% stockholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish the Company with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

To the Company’s knowledge, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to the Company and written representations from the Company’s officers and directors, all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners were complied with during fiscal 2017; except for each of the directors to correct an administrative error that incorrectly stated the number of shares underlying the number of options granted to the reporting person and for Mr. Bayer to disclose the vesting of the restricted stock.

31

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

In this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, we provide an overview of the Company’s executive compensation program, including a discussion of the compensation philosophy of our Compensation Committee. We also review the material elements of compensation earned by or paid to our named executive officers (each an “NEO”) in 2017, and discuss and analyze the compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee in 2017.

The NEOs discussed in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the related compensation tables are the officers listed in the table below.

The Compensation Committee has overall responsibility for approving the compensation program for our NEOs and makes all final compensation decisions regarding our NEOs. The Compensation Committee works to ensure that our compensation policies and practices are consistent with our values and support the successful recruitment, development and retention of NEO talent so we can achieve our business objectives and optimize our long-term financial returns.

Executive Summary

Our compensation programs are intended to align our NEOs’ interests with those of our stockholders by rewarding performance that meets or exceeds the goals the Compensation Committee establishes with the objective of increasing long-term stockholder value and supporting the shorter-term business goals we believe are necessary to effect such an increase. In line with our pay for performance philosophy, the total compensation received by our NEOs will vary based on the financial results of the Company and its business segments as well as progress made against identified strategic and/or operational goals. Our NEOs’ total compensation is comprised of a mix of base salary, annual incentive compensation and long-term equity awards.

32

The Compensation Committee established specific financial and other objectives for our NEOs with reference to the overall performance objectives approved by our board of directors. During 2017, our shorter-term financial goals were to increase our revenues and achieve our earnings targets. Our corporate performance objectives, which we established in the context of and viewed as critical to achieving our short- and long-term financial goals, were focused on growth strategies that included:

As context for the compensation of our NEOs in 2017, we provide below some highlights of our financial and operating performance during the year:

33

During 2017, we made compensation decisions and adjustments to elements of our compensation programs from 2016 to encourage our pay-for-performance culture. The Compensation Committee established the 2017 annual bonus program and set target performance levels for two key financial metrics (revenue and Adjusted EBITDA) as well as additional strategic and operational goals to focus appropriate effort on increasing 2Ku installations, increasing peak performance speeds, expanding our installed and upgraded base of aircraft, implementing our technology roadmap and achieving a pre-established target percentage of favorable responses in our annual employee engagement survey.

We employ several practices that reflect the Company’s compensation philosophy:

Establishing and Evaluating Executive Compensation

Executive Compensation Philosophy and Objectives. The executive compensation program has been designed to provide a total compensation package that will accomplish the following objectives:

Role of Compensation Consultants. The Compensation Committee retained Compensation Strategies, Inc. (“CSI”), to provide executive compensation consulting services to the Committee during 2017. CSI provides compensation data, analysis and guidance to the Compensation Committee, which the Committee uses when making decisions regarding our executive compensation programs and when establishing the compensation of our executive officers. Decisions on which CSI advised the Committee during 2017 included approval of the

34

2017 bonus program, the form and level of equity awards to executive officers, base salary increases and the level of target bonuses to executive officers. CSI also updated the market data that the Committee uses as a factor in its compensation determinations. See “Market Comparisons” below. CSI did not perform any other services for the Company in 2017.

Role of Executive Officers. Our Chief Executive Officer sometimes participates in Compensation Committee meetings and makes recommendations to our Compensation Committee with respect to the determination of components of compensation (including equity), compensation levels and performance targets for our executives. The Compensation Committee also meets formally and informally without executive management to discuss its compensation philosophy and approach and makes its decisions regarding NEO compensation in executive session with only its independent consultant and/or outside counsel present.

Market Comparisons. Our Compensation Committee has from time to time used market data as one factor in assessing how our base salary, target short-term incentives, target total cash compensation, actual total cash compensation, target long-term incentives and target total direct compensation compare to other companies in our peer group. The Compensation Committee has not targeted compensation to any peer group percentile data, but instead has used peer group data with a goal of providing total direct compensation opportunities for the NEOs at a level that is competitive with our peer group for executives in similar positions with similar responsibilities at companies included in our peer market data and that fairly compensates our executives. The Compensation Committee, with assistance from CSI, approved a peer group of companies in 2016 for use in assessing compensation elements and making compensation decisions for our executive officers. The Compensation Committee used the same peer group in 2017. The peer group is comprised primarily of companies from the Internet software and services industry with a communication focus where possible. Using that peer group (after applying a regression analysis to size-adjust compensation levels to a company with annual revenues equal to the Company’s revenues), CSI provided the Compensation Committee with comparative assessments for our executives’ base salaries, target bonuses, total cash compensation, long-term equity compensation and total compensation. In January 2018, the Compensation Committee, with support from CSI, approved an updated peer group, consisting of 19 companies.

The peer group for 2017 included the following 18 companies: (1) Akamai Technologies, Inc.; (2) Bottomline Technologies, Inc.; (3) Cogent Communications Group, Inc.; (4) Constant Contact, Inc.; (5) Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.; (6) HomeAway, Inc.; (7) Iridium Communications, Inc.; (8) j2 Global, Inc.; (9) NeuStar, Inc.; (10) NIC, Inc.; (11) Qlik Technologies Inc.; (12) RealPage, Inc.; (13) SolarWinds, Inc.; (14) Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.; (15) Syntel, Inc.; (16) ViaSat, Inc.; (17) Vonage Holdings Corp.; and (18) Web.com Group, Inc.

Say on Pay. The Compensation Committee considers the outcome of shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation when making decisions relating to the

35

compensation of our NEOs and our executive compensation programs. At our 2017 annual meeting of stockholders, our stockholders approved the compensation paid to our named executive officers in a non-binding advisory vote. Approximately 99% of the stockholders who voted on the proposal voted in favor of the proposal. The Compensation Committee believes the results conveyed support for the philosophy, strategy and objectives of our executive compensation program.

Changes to the Roles and Responsibilities of NEOs. During 2017, we made certain changes to the roles and responsibilities of our NEOs. On January 1, 2017, the Company promoted Mr. Cobin from Executive Vice President, Global Airline Group to Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. Effective April 24, 2017, Mr. Rowan was appointed Executive Vice President, Finance and, effective May 4, 2017, Mr. Rowan became our new Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Pursuant to Mr. Smagley’s transition agreement, he resigned from his positions as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company on May 4, 2017 but continued his employment as a Senior Finance Advisor until December 31, 2017. See “—Narrative to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table—Employment Agreements.” On March 4, 2018, Mr. Small stepped down as President and Chief Executive Officer and resigned as a member of our Board, and Oakleigh Thorne was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer. See “—Elements of Compensation—Employment and Other Agreements with NEOs” for a discussion of certain compensation arrangements entered into in connection with Mr. Small’s separation and Mr. Thorne’s appointment.

Elements of Compensation

Base Salary

We provide a base salary to our NEOs to compensate them in cash at a fixed amount for services rendered on a day-to-day basis during the year. We strive to set base salaries at levels that are competitive with companies included in our peer group for NEOs in similar positions with similar responsibilities. The base salaries of NEOs are reviewed annually and adjusted when appropriate to reflect individual roles and performance as well as market conditions.

2017 Base Salaries. Each of our NEOs received the base salary set forth in the Summary Compensation Table under “Salary.” Each of our NEOs is party to an employment agreement, and pursuant to the terms of each employment agreement, the base salaries are reviewed at least annually. In connection with Mr. Cobin’s promotion to Chief Commercial Officer, the Compensation Committee approved a 9% increase to his base salary effective January 1, 2017. In February 2017, the Compensation Committee approved increases (between 8% and 11%) to the base salaries of each of our other then-employed NEOs, other than Mr. Smagley, and it set base salaries for Messrs. Small, Chari, Wade, Cobin and Smagley at $700,000, $400,000, $400,000, $360,000 and $386,250, respectively. Given the Company’s

36

entry into a transition agreement with Mr. Smagley, the Compensation Committee did not increase his base salary in 2017. In connection with Mr. Rowan’s appointment as Chief Financial Officer in 2017, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Rowan pursuant to which his initial base salary was set at $450,000. The Compensation Committee, following arm’s length negotiations, approved the level of base compensation following consideration of Mr. Rowan’s experience and expertise and the compensation Mr. Rowan earned in his prior place of employment.

2018 Base Salaries. In February 2018, the Compensation Committee determined to make no increases to the base salaries of each of our NEOs.

Annual Incentive Plan

We use annual cash incentive bonuses to reward our NEOs for the achievement of Company performance goals. These performance-based bonuses are tied to our operating results in order to motivate our NEOs to focus on particular performance measures chosen by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee chooses performance measures that are aligned with our financial and strategic goals, thereby providing incentives to accomplish objectives that the Compensation Committee believes should improve both short-term and long-term stockholder value.

Our NEOs’ employment agreements provide for a minimum target bonus based on a specified percentage of base salary. In March 2017, the Compensation Committee set the percentage levels of salary to be paid for performance at target levels for Mr. Small at 100% and for our other NEOs (except Mr. Rowan) at 75%, the same target levels as in 2016. In April 2017, the Compensation Committee set Mr. Rowan’s target bonus percentage at 75% of base salary, the same level as our NEOs (excluding our Chief NEO Officer), subject to proration based on his length of service in 2017.

2017 Bonus Program. In March 2017, the Compensation Committee established the performance objectives for the 2017 annual bonus program. Similar to the 2016 bonus program, the 2017 bonus program included financial objectives for our NEOs and other senior executives, as well as strategic and operational objectives that measure current performance and positioning for future growth. The 2017 bonus payout for each NEO was calculated based on corporate results, except for Mr. Wade, whose bonus was calculated in part based on corporate results and in part based on BA results as described below. As was the case with the 2016 bonus program, the 2017 bonus program provides that our NEOs are not eligible to receive amounts based on their achievement of strategic and operational objectives unless pre-established thresholds of consolidated revenue and/or adjusted EBITDA have also been achieved. The Compensation Committee believes that promoting a focus on corporate and segment-based financial and operational/strategic goals for our NEOs and other senior executives will help improve stockholder value over time. The 2017 bonus program was designed to pay out at 100% if target levels were achieved, with minimum (50%) and maximum (200%) payouts at specified performance levels.

37

The corporate financial objectives established in March 2017 for the bonus program included the following targets: (1) attainment of a pre-established target for consolidated adjusted EBITDA of $73.8 million; and (2) attainment of a pre-established revenue target of $685.9 million. The bonuses for Messrs. Small, Rowan, Chari, Cobin and Smagley were based 67% on attainment of the consolidated financial targets and 33% on performance against each of eight corporate objectives (weighted from 3% to 6%). Given Mr. Wade’s role as Chief Operating Officer and his continued oversight of the BA business unit, Mr. Wade’s bonus was based 47% on attainment of the consolidated financial targets, 20% on attainment of the pre-established BA financial targets (adjusted EBITDA of $90.3 million and revenue of $225.7 million), 22% on each of eight corporate objectives (weighted from 3% to 6%) and 11% on attainment of four BA objectives (weighted equally).

The bonus program is funded based on the achievement of the adjusted EBITDA and revenue metrics. For each adjusted EBITDA and revenue metric, there is a minimum performance level ranging from 68% to 94% of the target performance level, depending on the metric. At such level, 50% of the applicable portion of the target bonus is paid, and performance below that level results in zero payout for the applicable portion. There is also a maximum payout of 200% of the applicable portion of the target bonus for each financial metric, achieved at performance levels ranging from 104% to 122% of the target performance level depending on the metric.

For purposes of the plan, EBITDA means net income (loss) attributable to common stock before income taxes, interest income, interest expense, depreciation expense and amortization of other intangible assets. Adjusted EBITDA means EBITDA adjusted for (i) stock-based compensation expense, (ii) amortization of deferred airborne lease incentives, (iii) loss on extinguishment of debt and (iv) adjustment of deferred financing costs. Our management believes that the use of adjusted EBITDA eliminates items that have less bearing on our operating performance, thereby highlighting trends in our core business that may not otherwise be apparent. It also provides an assessment of controllable expenses, which are indicators management uses to determine whether current spending decisions need to be adjusted in order to meet financial goals and achieve optimal financial performance. Also for purposes of the bonus program, revenue excludes CA equipment revenue.

The corporate and strategic objectives established in March 2017 for the NEOs and other members of senior management included goals relating to increasing the number of 2Ku systems installed on aircraft, demonstrating increased inflight performance peak speeds, development milestones related to the Company’s next generation ATG technology, agreements or aircraft upgrades, written awards for installation of the 2Ku system on aircraft operated by Middle East and Asian airlines, achievement of satellite system availability targets, achievement of line-fit objectives and achievement of employee engagement targets. In addition, for Mr. Wade, the BA objectives included goals relating to sales of Gogo Biz 4G systems, ATG services and 2Ku equipment and achievement of employee engagement targets. The Compensation Committee chose these goals because it believed they would help measure

38

success in current performance while encouraging NEOs to position the Company for future growth. If achievement of adjusted EBITDA and/or revenue are below the applicable minimum performance levels, the strategic and operational portion of the NEOs’ bonuses will not be paid, even if those objectives are met.

Achievements in 2017 against the bonus plan targets for the pools in which the NEOs participated were as follows.

For Corporate:

For BA:

Certain of the strategic and operational objectives for corporate and BA were designed to pay out at levels ranging from 50% to 150% of the associated portion of the target bonus based on the level of achievement against the goals set for such objectives. The Company met five of the eight corporate strategic and operational objectives, for which Messrs. Small, Rowan, Chari, Cobin and Smagley received a 68% payout of the associated portion of the target bonus and Mr. Wade received a 68% payout of the associated portion of the target bonus. The Company met three of the four BA strategic and operational objectives, for which Mr. Wade received a 100% payout of the associated portion of his target bonus. The portion of bonus funding based on corporate performance was reduced to 80% to offset the impact of corporate level decisions that adversely impacted divisional performance. Based on the financial and operational objectives, the aggregate payout to each of our NEOs was 71.6% of the target bonus for Messrs. Small, Rowan, Chari, Cobin and Smagley and 110.65% for Wade. The amounts paid to our NEOs are set forth in the “Bonus” and “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” columns of our Summary Compensation Table.

Equity-Based Compensation

We believe that competitive equity compensation is a key component of our overall compensation structure and critically important to our ability to attract and retain top talent,

39

and that equity-based awards align the interests of our NEOs with the interests of our equity holders and encourage our NEOs to focus on the long-term performance of our business. Additionally, we believe equity awards provide an important retention tool for our NEOs, as they are subject to multi-year vesting and, in some cases, vesting based on performance goals. Equity awards are granted under the Gogo Inc. 2013 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2013 Omnibus Plan”), adopted at the time of our 2013 initial public offering or the Gogo Inc. 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2016 Omnibus Plan”) approved by our shareholders in 2016.

Equity incentives to our NEOs are provided on an annual basis in the form of a combination of restricted stock units and stock options, with an approximate 75% weighting toward options and 25% weighting toward restricted stock. In February 2017, the Committee determined the annual grants for our NEOs. As described in more detail below, Messrs. Smagley and Rowan did not receive annual grants in 2017, in the case of Mr. Smagley because of his transition and in the case of Mr. Rowan because he joined the company subsequent to the date of the annual grants. While the Company had in prior years set equity compensation for our NEOs as a percentage of average base salary, using that methodology would have resulted in a much higher usage of shares than the Committee considered desirable. Accordingly, in 2017, we continued to reduce the value of our equity grants and lowered the number of shares granted to the NEOs to maintain our desired usage of shares. As in 2016, the Compensation Committee determined to grant options and restricted stock subject to time-based vesting as well as options and restricted shares subject to both time-based vesting and performance vesting based on a sustained increase in our share price to previously targeted levels.

We believe that the variety of equity awards we grant to NEOs provide a balance of stock price appreciation, retention, and performance-based vesting in our equity incentive program, without undue dilution or potential windfalls. In particular, the Committee believes that performance-based vesting creates a longer-term focus on achieving performance goals that are critical to our future success and drive shareholder value, and that options also contribute to a longer-term focus. We further believe that options and performance-vesting restricted stock units encourage our NEOs to focus on increasing our stock price, and that time-vesting restricted stock assists us in retaining NEOs, as such awards continue to have value even in a down market while still rewarding NEOs for stock price gains.

As in 2016, all time-vesting stock options and restricted stock granted in 2017 are subject to service-based vesting over the four years following the grant date. The performance-vesting restricted stock units and stock options granted in 2017 are subject to both four-year service-based vesting and to the achievement of stock performance goals, with performance vesting based on achieving a common stock price of $25 or above for a period of 30 consecutive trading days within four years of the grant date. See “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control—Effect of Termination or Change in Control on Equity Compensation” for discussion of the performance conditions.

40

In determining the size of the equity grants to our NEOs, the Compensation Committee took into account past performance, anticipated contribution to our long-term goals, market data for NEOs in similar roles at peer companies, and total compensation of our NEOs as compared to peer companies. In 2017, the Compensation Committee determined that the 2017 equity grant should increase the performance-vesting component while decreasing the time-vesting portion. Thus, the 2017 grants for the NEOs comprised of 60% time-vesting options and shares of restricted stock and 40% performance-vesting options and restricted stock units. The Compensation Committee approved a proposal by Mr. Small to reallocate a portion of his proposed annual equity grant to the NEOs and other executive officers (excluding Messrs. Smagley and Rowan).

As an inducement to join the Company, Mr. Rowan received an award in April 2017 comprised of 67% time-vesting options and shares and 33% performance-vesting options and restricted stock units. Given Mr. Smagley’s transition, the Compensation Committee did not grant him any equity awards in 2017. See “—2016 Grants of Plan-Based Awards” for information regarding the number and value of the equity awards granted. Additional information regarding these and previous option grants is found in the Summary Compensation Table, Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table and Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End Table.

Employment and Other Agreements with NEOs

We have entered into employment agreements with each of our NEOs that include the specific terms set forth below. We believe that having employment agreements with our NEOs is beneficial to us because it provides retentive value and subjects the NEOs to restrictive covenants. In December 2016, we entered into a transition agreement with Mr. Smagley to reflect his changing roles. The employment agreements for Messrs. Chari, Wade and Cobin were amended in April 2018 to provide the same severance benefits upon the NEO’s resignation for good reason as provided upon a termination by the Company without cause, and to make other minor changes to provide consistency across the senior executive level. In connection with the commencement of his employment, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Rowan in April 2017. The agreement provides for his base salary, target annual bonus, the initial equity grant described above, a signing bonus of $100,000 and certain additional relocation benefits. On March 4, 2018, we entered into a separation agreement with Mr. Small pursuant to which he will receive certain severance and other benefits. See “—Narrative to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table—Employment Agreements” and “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control—Separation Agreement” for details regarding these agreements. In connection with the commencement of his employment, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Thorne on March 4, 2018. The agreement provides for his base salary, target annual bonus, an initial equity grant and certain relocation benefits.

We have also entered into change in control agreements with each of our NEOs to assure the NEOs that they will be protected in the event of a change in control of the

41

Company. Under the agreements, Mr. Small was entitled to receive severance benefits of 24 months of salary and target bonus as well as reimbursement of COBRA premiums payable to maintain substantially equivalent health insurance coverage during the severance period, while each of our other NEOs is entitled to receive severance benefits of 18 months of base salary and target bonus, as well as reimbursement of COBRA premiums payable to maintain substantially equivalent health insurance coverage during the severance period, in each case, if the NEO is terminated by the Company without cause or the NEO resigns with good reason within two years following a change in control. Additionally, any unvested stock options would immediately become vested and exercisable upon such termination. In April 2018, we amended the change in control agreements for each of Messrs. Chari, Wade and Cobin to provide that performance awards do not immediately vest upon termination. Instead, any unvested performance award will remain outstanding until the applicable performance vesting date (or 90 days after such date if the award is a stock option) and will vest or be forfeited based on the satisfaction of the applicable performance goals to the extent as if the NEO’s employment had continued through the applicable vesting date (with service-based vesting accelerated in full as of the date of termination). The treatment of such performance awards is consistent with the terms of the award agreements for the performance options and restricted stock units granted in 2016 and 2017. Mr. Rowan’s change in control agreement was entered into in April 2017 consistent with the terms described above for the other NEOs (except Mr. Small). The change in control agreements with each of Messrs. Small and Smagley terminated on their respective separation dates.

Perquisites

We do not generally provide perquisites or personal benefits to our NEOs. However, in connection with his commencement of employment and relocation, Mr. Rowan was entitled to receive reimbursement of temporary housing expenses for 60 days, as well as reimbursement of other moving and relocation expenses. Additionally, in accordance with Company practice, Mr. Rowan received reimbursement of taxes associated with the payment of certain housing and relocation expenses. Mr. Rowan also received reimbursement of his attorney’s fees in connection with the negotiation of his employment agreement.

Other Benefits

Our full time NEOs are eligible to participate in our 401(k) benefit plan and our health and welfare plans on the same basis as our other employees.

Non-qualified Deferred Compensation

None of our NEOs participates in or has account balances in non-qualified defined contribution plans or other deferred compensation plans maintained by us.

42

ESPP

To encourage employee investment in the Company, the Company maintains an employee stock purchase plan (“ESPP”) that is intended to qualify for favorable tax treatment under Sections 421 and 423 of the Code. Under the ESPP, our employees, including our NEOs, can purchase a limited number of shares at a discount (currently 10% and capped at 15% under the ESPP) to our market price.

Other Compensation Practices and Policies

Stock ownership guidelines. Under our stock ownership guidelines, each of our NEOs is required to maintain a minimum equity stake in the Company, determined as a multiple of the NEO’s base salary (3 times salary for our CEO and 2 times salary for each of our other NEOs) and converted to a fixed number of shares. Until the NEO reaches the minimum required level of stock ownership, the NEO is required to retain 50% of the net shares received through exercise of stock options, vesting of restricted stock or other stock-based compensation, granted on or after December 12, 2011. “Net shares” are those shares that remain after shares are sold or netted to pay withholding taxes and, in the case of stock options, the exercise price.

Policy regarding the timing of equity awards. We have no program, plan or practice pertaining to the timing of stock option grants to NEOs coinciding with the release of material non-public information.

Policy regarding clawbacks. We do not currently have a formal policy requiring a fixed course of action with respect to compensation adjustments following later restatements of financial results. Under those circumstances, the board of directors or Compensation Committee would evaluate whether compensation adjustments were appropriate based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the restatement. The Company is considering a policy regarding clawbacks of compensation. The compensation plans adopted at and after the time of our initial public offering include provisions allowing the Company to claw back compensation to the extent required by any Company policy or applicable law or stock exchange regulations.

Tax deductibility. Our board of directors has considered the potential future effects of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code on the deductibility of executive compensation paid to our NEOs. Section 162(m) places a limit of $1 million on the amount of compensation that a publicly held corporation may deduct in any one year with respect to its chief executive officer, chief financial officer and each of the next three most highly compensated executive officers. For 2017, where appropriate, we sought to qualify certain of the compensation paid to the covered named executive officers for an exemption from the deductibility limitations of Section 162(m) under the qualified performance-based compensation exemption. Recently enacted legislation makes certain changes to Section 162(m), including repealing the exemption for qualified performance-based compensation for taxable years beginning after

43

December 31, 2017. Accordingly, compensation paid after 2017 to our covered executive officers in excess of $1 million will not be deductible unless it qualifies for transition relief applicable to certain arrangements in place as of November 2, 2017. In light of these changes, it is expected that the Committee will authorize compensation payments that do not comply with exemptions under Section 162(m) in order to attract, retain and motivate talented executives.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this proxy statement with members of management, and based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.

44

2017 Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth information regarding compensation earned by our NEOs during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

45

46

2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards

Set forth below is information regarding plan-based awards granted to our NEOs during 2017.

47

Narrative to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table

Time-Vesting Option Awards

Time-vesting options granted in 2017 under the 2016 Omnibus Plan have a ten-year term. The options are scheduled to vest 25% on the first four anniversaries of the grant date, generally subject to continued employment with the Company through the applicable vesting date. See “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control” including the discussion under “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control—Effect of Termination or Change in Control on Equity Compensation” for a discussion of the effect of termination and change in control on option vesting.