Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies As of September 30, 2014, the aggregate cost of our five ships on order (excluding TUI Cruises' ships on order) was approximately $6.0 billion, of which we had deposited $571.4 million as of such date. Approximately 29.3% of the aggregate cost was exposed to fluctuations in the Euro exchange rate at September 30, 2014. (See Note 10. Fair Value Measurements and Derivative Instruments). In April 2014, we entered into a credit agreement for the US dollar financing of a portion of the third Oasis-class ship. The credit agreement makes available to us an unsecured term loan in an amount up to the US dollar equivalent of €178.4 million. The loan amortizes semi-annually and will mature 12 years following delivery of the ship. At our election, prior to the ship delivery, interest on the loan will accrue either (1) at a fixed rate of 2.53% (inclusive of the applicable margin) or (2) at a floating rate equal to LIBOR plus 1.20%. In connection with this credit agreement, we amended the €892.2 million credit agreement, originally entered into in 2013 to finance the ship, reducing the maximum facility amount to approximately €713.8 million. Both the existing Euro-denominated facility and the new US dollar-denominated facility are 100% guaranteed by Compagnie Française d’Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur (“COFACE”), the export credit agency of France. In August 2014, our conditional agreement with STX France to build the fourth Oasis-class ship for Royal Caribbean International became effective. We received commitments for the unsecured financing of the ship for up to 80% of the ship’s contract price through a facility to be guaranteed 100% by COFACE. The ship will have a capacity of approximately 5,450 berths and is expected to enter service in the second quarter of 2018. Litigation As previously reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean International cruise vessels. The complaint alleged that the stateroom attendants were required to pay other crew members to help with their duties and that certain stateroom attendants were required to work back of house assignments without the ability to earn gratuities, in each case in violation of the U.S. Seaman’s Wage Act. In May 2012, the district court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated. The United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, affirmed the district court’s dismissal and denied the plaintiffs’ petition for re-hearing and re-hearing en banc. In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to review the order compelling arbitration. Shortly thereafter, in excess of 450 crew members submitted demands for arbitration. The demands make substantially the same allegations as in the federal court complaint and are similarly seeking damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount. Unlike the federal court complaint, the demands for arbitration are being brought individually by each of the crew members and not on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants. At this time, we are unable to estimate the possible impact of this matter on us. However, we believe the underlying claims made against us are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them. We are routinely involved in other claims typical within the cruise vacation industry. The majority of these claims are covered by insurance. We believe the outcome of such claims, net of expected insurance recoveries, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations and cash flows. Other In July 2002, we entered into an operating lease denominated in British pound sterling for the Brilliance of the Seas. The lease payments vary based on sterling LIBOR and are included in Other operating income (expenses) in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss). Brilliance of the Seas lease expense amounts were approximately £3.1 million and £3.1 million, or approximately $5.1 million and $4.8 million, for the quarters ended September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively, and were approximately £9.3 million and £9.2 million, or approximately $15.4 million and $14.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively. The lease has a contractual life of 25 years; however, both the lessor and we have certain rights to cancel the lease at year 18 (i.e. 2020) upon advance notice given approximately one year prior to cancellation. In the event of early termination at year 18, we have the option to cause the sale of the vessel at its fair value and to use the proceeds towards the applicable termination payment. Alternatively, we could opt at such time to make a termination payment of approximately £62.6 million, or approximately $101.5 million based on the exchange rate at September 30, 2014, and relinquish our right to cause the sale of the vessel. Although we do not believe that exercise of this early termination provision is probable, we evaluate, from time to time, our alternatives under the lease, including the potential purchase of the vessel. Under the Brilliance of the Seas operating lease, we have agreed to indemnify the lessor to the extent its after-tax return is negatively impacted by unfavorable changes in corporate tax rates, capital allowance deductions and certain unfavorable determinations which may be made by the United Kingdom tax authorities. These indemnifications could result in an increase in our lease payments. We are unable to estimate the maximum potential increase in our lease payments due to the various circumstances, timing or a combination of events that could trigger such indemnifications. The United Kingdom tax authorities are disputing the lessor’s accounting treatment of the lease and the lessor and tax authorities are in discussions on the matter. If the characterization of the lease by the lessor is ultimately determined to be incorrect, we could be required to indemnify the lessor under certain circumstances. The lessor has advised us that they believe their characterization of the lease is correct. Based on the foregoing and our review of available information, we do not believe an indemnification payment is probable. However, if the lessor loses its dispute and we are required to indemnify the lessor, we cannot at this time predict the impact that such an occurrence would have on our financial condition and results of operations. Some of the contracts that we enter into include indemnification provisions that obligate us to make payments to the counterparty if certain events occur. These contingencies generally relate to changes in taxes, increased lender capital costs and other similar costs. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and are entered into in the normal course of business. There are no stated or notional amounts included in the indemnification clauses and we are not able to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments, if any, under these indemnification clauses. We have not been required to make any payments under such indemnification clauses in the past and, under current circumstances, we do not believe an indemnification in any material amount is probable. If (i) any person other than A. Wilhelmsen AS. and Cruise Associates and their respective affiliates (the “Applicable Group”) acquires ownership of more than 33% of our common stock and the Applicable Group owns less of our common stock than such person, or (ii) subject to certain exceptions, during any 24-month period, a majority of the Board is no longer comprised of individuals who were members of the Board on the first day of such period, we may be obligated to prepay indebtedness outstanding under the majority of our credit facilities, which we may be unable to replace on similar terms. Certain of our outstanding debt securities also contain change of control provisions that would be triggered by the acquisition of greater than 50% of our common stock by a person other than a member of the Applicable Group coupled with a ratings downgrade. If this were to occur, it would have an adverse impact on our liquidity and operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

As of September 30, 2014, the aggregate cost of our five ships on order (excluding TUI Cruises' ships on order) was approximately $6.0 billion, of which we had deposited $571.4 million as of such date. Approximately 29.3% of the aggregate cost was exposed to fluctuations in the Euro exchange rate at September 30, 2014. (See Note 10. Fair Value Measurements and Derivative Instruments).

In April 2014, we entered into a credit agreement for the US dollar financing of a portion of the third Oasis-class ship. The credit agreement makes available to us an unsecured term loan in an amount up to the US dollar equivalent of €178.4 million. The loan amortizes semi-annually and will mature 12 years following delivery of the ship. At our election, prior to the ship delivery, interest on the loan will accrue either (1) at a fixed rate of 2.53% (inclusive of the applicable margin) or (2) at a floating rate equal to LIBOR plus 1.20%. In connection with this credit agreement, we amended the €892.2 million credit agreement, originally entered into in 2013 to finance the ship, reducing the maximum facility amount to approximately €713.8 million. Both the existing Euro-denominated facility and the new US dollar-denominated facility are 100% guaranteed by Compagnie Française d’Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur (“COFACE”), the export credit agency of France.

In August 2014, our conditional agreement with STX France to build the fourth Oasis-class ship for Royal Caribbean International became effective. We received commitments for the unsecured financing of the ship for up to 80% of the ship’s contract price through a facility to be guaranteed 100% by COFACE. The ship will have a capacity of approximately 5,450 berths and is expected to enter service in the second quarter of 2018.

Litigation

As previously reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean International cruise vessels. The complaint alleged that the stateroom attendants were required to pay other crew members to help with their duties and that certain stateroom attendants were required to work back of house assignments without the ability to earn gratuities, in each case in violation of the U.S. Seaman’s Wage Act. In May 2012, the district court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated. The United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, affirmed the district court’s dismissal and denied the plaintiffs’ petition for re-hearing and re-hearing en banc. In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to review the order compelling arbitration. Shortly thereafter, in excess of 450 crew members submitted demands for arbitration. The demands make substantially the same allegations as in the federal court complaint and are similarly seeking damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount. Unlike the federal court complaint, the demands for arbitration are being brought individually by each of the crew members and not on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants. At this time, we are unable to estimate the possible impact of this matter on us. However, we believe the underlying claims made against us are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them.

We are routinely involved in other claims typical within the cruise vacation industry. The majority of these claims are covered by insurance. We believe the outcome of such claims, net of expected insurance recoveries, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations and cash flows.

Other

In July 2002, we entered into an operating lease denominated in British pound sterling for the Brilliance of the Seas. The lease payments vary based on sterling LIBOR and are included in Other operating income (expenses) in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss). Brilliance of the Seas lease expense amounts were approximately £3.1 million and £3.1 million, or approximately $5.1 million and $4.8 million, for the quarters ended September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively, and were approximately £9.3 million and £9.2 million, or approximately $15.4 million and $14.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively. The lease has a contractual life of 25 years; however, both the lessor and we have certain rights to cancel the lease at year 18 (i.e. 2020) upon advance notice given approximately one year prior to cancellation. In the event of early termination at year 18, we have the option to cause the sale of the vessel at its fair value and to use the proceeds towards the applicable termination payment. Alternatively, we could opt at such time to make a termination payment of approximately £62.6 million, or approximately $101.5 million based on the exchange rate at September 30, 2014, and relinquish our right to cause the sale of the vessel. Although we do not believe that exercise of this early termination provision is probable, we evaluate, from time to time, our alternatives under the lease, including the potential purchase of the vessel.

Under the Brilliance of the Seas operating lease, we have agreed to indemnify the lessor to the extent its after-tax return is negatively impacted by unfavorable changes in corporate tax rates, capital allowance deductions and certain unfavorable determinations which may be made by the United Kingdom tax authorities. These indemnifications could result in an increase in our lease payments. We are unable to estimate the maximum potential increase in our lease payments due to the various circumstances, timing or a combination of events that could trigger such indemnifications. The United Kingdom tax authorities are disputing the lessor’s accounting treatment of the lease and the lessor and tax authorities are in discussions on the matter. If the characterization of the lease by the lessor is ultimately determined to be incorrect, we could be required to indemnify the lessor under certain circumstances. The lessor has advised us that they believe their characterization of the lease is correct. Based on the foregoing and our review of available information, we do not believe an indemnification payment is probable. However, if the lessor loses its dispute and we are required to indemnify the lessor, we cannot at this time predict the impact that such an occurrence would have on our financial condition and results of operations.

Some of the contracts that we enter into include indemnification provisions that obligate us to make payments to the counterparty if certain events occur. These contingencies generally relate to changes in taxes, increased lender capital costs and other similar costs. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and are entered into in the normal course of business. There are no stated or notional amounts included in the indemnification clauses and we are not able to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments, if any, under these indemnification clauses. We have not been required to make any payments under such indemnification clauses in the past and, under current circumstances, we do not believe an indemnification in any material amount is probable.

If (i) any person other than A. Wilhelmsen AS. and Cruise Associates and their respective affiliates (the “Applicable Group”) acquires ownership of more than 33% of our common stock and the Applicable Group owns less of our common stock than such person, or (ii) subject to certain exceptions, during any 24-month period, a majority of the Board is no longer comprised of individuals who were members of the Board on the first day of such period, we may be obligated to prepay indebtedness outstanding under the majority of our credit facilities, which we may be unable to replace on similar terms. Certain of our outstanding debt securities also contain change of control provisions that would be triggered by the acquisition of greater than 50% of our common stock by a person other than a member of the Applicable Group coupled with a ratings downgrade. If this were to occur, it would have an adverse impact on our liquidity and operations.