| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |
| In thousands | |||
| Industrial Distribution | $ 950,750 | $ 831,997 | $ 645,535 |
| Aerospace | 547,403 | 486,516 | 500,696 |
| Total | $ 1,498,153 | $ 1,318,513 | $ 1,146,231 |
| $ change | $ 179,640 | $ 172,282 | $ (107,364) |
| % change | 13.6 % | 15.0 % | (8.6)% |
The increase in net sales for 2011 as compared to 2010 was attributable to an increase in organic sales at both our segments and the contribution of $87.5 million in sales from the acquisitions completed in 2011 and 2010. Foreign currency exchange rates had a $3.4 million favorable impact on sales during 2011. See Segment Results of Operations and Financial Condition below for further discussion of segment net sales.
The increase in net sales for 2010 as compared to 2009 was attributable to an increase in organic sales at our Industrial Distribution segment, the contribution of sales from our 2010 acquisitions and the favorable impact of foreign currency exchange rates of $2.0 million, partially offset by a decrease in organic sales at our Aerospace segment. See Segment Results of Operations and Financial Condition below for further discussion of segment net sales.
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |
| In thousands | |||
| Gross profit | $ 418,171 | $ 357,807 | $ 305,938 |
| $ change | 60,364 | 51,869 | (26,199) |
| % change | 16.9 % | 17.0 % | (7.9 )% |
| % of net sales | 27.9 % | 27.1 % | 26.7 % |
Gross profit increased in 2011 primarily due to organic increases in gross profit at both our segments and the contribution of gross profit from our 2010 and 2011 acquisitions. The organic increase in gross profit in our Industrial Distribution segment was primarily a result of higher sales volume compared to the prior year and higher gross margin rates despite increased competitive price pressures. The organic increase in gross profit in our Aerospace segment was due to increased sales volume related to our bearing product lines for the commercial and regional / business jet markets, commercial sales to foreign militaries of the JPF fuze, the contribution of gross profit from the K-MAX® unmanned aircraft systems and the absence of program related losses recorded in 2010. These increases were partially offset by decreased gross profit resulting from fewer shipments under our JPF fuze program to the USG, lower volume in our helicopter aftermarket programs and a reduction in C-17 program volume.
Gross profit increased for 2010 as compared to 2009 due to an increase in gross profit at both our segments. The increase in Industrial Distribution gross profit was primarily a result of higher sales volume and the addition of gross profit from the acquisitions completed during the year. The increase in gross profit at our Aerospace segment was primarily due to an increase in gross profit for our JPF program resulting from the improved pricing related to deliveries under Option 6, an increase in gross profit on the Sikorsky BLACK HAWK Helicopter program resulting from an increase in deliveries compared to the prior year and an increase in gross profit on our blade erosion coating programs. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in sales volume related to our bearing product lines, $3.3 million in contract losses on the Sikorsky Canadian MH-92 program, $1.5 million in losses on our Bell Helicopter program due to inefficiencies and scrap on our initial production units, reduced gross profit on the C-17 program due to a reduction in volume requirements, a reduction in sales resulting from lower volume on our helicopter after market programs, including Egypt SH-2G(E), and $2.8 million in losses resulting from a reduction in quantities required by our customer for one of our fuze programs.
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |
| In thousands | |||
| S,G&A | $ 329,070 | $ 293,441 | $ 264,337 |
| $ change | 35,629 | 29,104 | 9,601 |
| % change | 12.1 % | 11.0 % | 3.8 % |
| % of net sales | 22.0 % | 22.3 % | 23.1 % |
S,G&A increased for 2011 as compared to 2010 due to increased expenses in both of our segments, including $15.9 million of expenses related to our 2010 and 2011 acquisitions. The higher expense at our Industrial Distribution segment was attributable to acquisitions and an increase in variable costs such as sales commissions and other employee related costs resulting from the higher sales volume. The increase in expense at our Aerospace segment was primarily due to the additional expenses resulting from the 2010 acquisition of Global Aerosystems, our 2011 acquisition of Vermont Composites, $4.75 million in expense associated with the settlement of the FMU-143 matter and higher employee related costs. Corporate expense was relatively flat for 2011 as compared to 2010, with increases in our incentive compensation expense and group health insurance expense virtually offset by lower acquisition related costs, lower pension expense and a nonrecurring benefit of $2.4 million associated with the death of a former executive.
S,G&A increased for 2010 as compared to 2009 due to an increase in expense at both our segments offset by a decrease in Corporate expense. The higher expense at our Industrial Distribution segment was attributable to the acquisitions as well as the absence of certain one-time benefits related to employee furloughs taken in 2009 and an increase in variable costs such as sales commissions and other employee related costs resulting from the higher sales volume. The increase in expense at our Aerospace segment was due to an increase in legal fees associated with the FMU-143 program litigation matters. The decrease in our Corporate expenses was primarily due to a $12.0 million decrease in pension expense, partially offset by $1.5 million in acquisition related costs.
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |
| In thousands | |||
| Goodwill impairment | $ — | $ 6,371 | $ — |
During the first quarter of 2010, we were informally notified by a customer of its intent to terminate a contract that had been obtained in our acquisition of U.K. Composites. No sales were recognized related to the contract in question during the years ended December 31, 2010 or 2009. Throughout 2010, management worked with this customer to find an acceptable resolution and maintain the work there under. During the fourth quarter of 2010 we received a contract termination notice and, as a result, removed all future revenue and related profit associated with this contract from the reporting unit's projections when preparing its annual test for impairment. We do not believe the termination of the contract will have a significant impact on our liquidity. This contract loss, in addition to a reduction in revenue for other programs, reduced the revenue and earnings growth forecast to levels below those anticipated at the reporting unit's acquisition in 2008, creating a situation in which Step 1 of the impairment analysis resulted in a fair value for the reporting unit below its carrying value. Prior to proceeding to Step 2 of the impairment analysis, management assessed the tangible and intangible assets subject to amortization to determine if they were impaired. Based on this analysis these assets were determined not to be impaired. Upon completion of the Step 2 impairment analysis, we recorded a non-cash non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $6.4 million (representing 17% of the total goodwill balance for the reporting unit) to reduce the carrying value of goodwill to its implied fair value. This charge has been included in the operating results of our Aerospace segment. See Note 5, Fair Value Measurements, and Note 9, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, Net, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies, for further discussion.