multi-alignments, any better solutions?

Please see my questions in the codes:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{amsmath,amsthm,mathtools}

\begin{document}

I am not sure align at the equal sign is a good idea, it looks weird to me.
\begin{align}
y & = \Sigma aaa \\  \nonumber
& = bbb + ccc \\ \nonumber
& + ddd + eee \\ \nonumber
& + fff + ggg
\end{align}

So I am trying some other options, like this [Effect-1],
\begin{align}
y= & \Sigma aaa \\  \nonumber
= &bbb + ccc \\ \nonumber
&  {\rm{~~~~}} + ddd + eee \\ \nonumber
&  {\rm{~~~~}} + fff + ggg
\end{align}
That is the first line and second line, align at equal sign, and the second and the rest, align at plus sign.

Or this [Effect-2],
\begin{align}
y= & \Sigma aaa \\  \nonumber
= & {\rm{~~~}} bbb + ccc \\ \nonumber
& + ddd + eee \\ \nonumber
& + fff + ggg
\end{align}
That is the first line and second line, align at equal sign, and the second and the rest, align at characters sign, and in the meantime, keep plus sign not aligned with equal sign.

Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences.

Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences. Some sentences.

\begin{align}
y= & \Sigma aaa \\  \nonumber
= & \rm{~~~} bbb - ccc - ddd - eee \\ \nonumber
& - fff - ggg
\end{align}
I want this new equation aligned with the above equations without using intertext.

Questions:

1) Using \emph{rm spaces} looks stupid and not always correct, any better solution for multi alignments?

2) How to align across different paragraphs, if I do not want to use "inter text"?

\end{document}


-

Here are a couple of methods you can employ:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mathtools}% http://ctan.org/pkg/{mathtools}
\begin{document}

One way
\begin{align}
y & = \Sigma aaa \\
& = bbb + ccc \nonumber \\
& \mathrel{\phantom{=}}{} + ddd + eee \nonumber \\
& \mathrel{\phantom{=}}{} + fff + ggg \nonumber
\end{align}

Another way,
\begin{align}
y &= \Sigma aaa \\
&= bbb + ccc \nonumber \\
&\mathrel{\phantom{=}}\phantom{bbb} + ddd + eee \nonumber \\
&\mathrel{\phantom{=}}\phantom{bbb} + fff + ggg \nonumber
\end{align}
That is the first line and second line, align at equal sign, and the second and the rest,
align at plus sign.

Yet another way
\begin{align}
y &= \Sigma aaa \\
&= {}\mathbin{\phantom{+}} bbb + ccc \nonumber \\
&\mathrel{\phantom{=}}{} + ddd + eee \nonumber \\
&\mathrel{\phantom{=}}{} + fff + ggg \nonumber
\end{align}
That is the first line and second line, align at equal sign, and the second and the rest,
align at characters sign, and in the meantime, keep plus sign not aligned with equal sign.
\begin{align}
y &= \Sigma aaa \\
&= bbb - ccc - ddd - eee \nonumber \\
& - fff - ggg \nonumber
\end{align}
I want this new equation aligned with the equations below without using intertext.
\begin{align}
y &\mathrlap{{}= \Sigma aaa}\phantom{{}= bbb - ccc - ddd - eee} \\
&= {}\mathbin{\phantom{+}} bbb + ccc \nonumber \\
&\mathrel{\phantom{=}}{} + ddd + eee \nonumber \\
&\mathrel{\phantom{=}}{} + fff + ggg \nonumber
\end{align}

\end{document}


Some considerations:

• Never leave empty lines around align (to avoid excessive vertical spacing);
• Use \phantom{..} to obtain the correct spacing of stuff without actually typesetting it;
• Using \phantom might remove the spacing associated with an operator/relation. Fix this by adding an empty group {} on the "lost side".
• When avoiding \intertext, you need to be able to capture (manually) the largest (horizontally) elements on either side of the alignment and transfer it verbatim, using \phantom. The actual setting of other components should use an overlapping technique (\mathrlap or \mathllap, as in my example).
-

Or rather this:

\begin{align}
y & = \Sigma aaa \\  \nonumber
& = bbb + ccc \\ \nonumber
& \quad{}+ ddd + eee \\ \nonumber

{} is for proper spacing around + sign and \quad and \qquad are standard lengths in math mode.
@Daniel In Effect-1 there is improper spacing around = signs and aligning on + signs seems to be incidental. – Przemysław Scherwentke Jun 7 '13 at 18:21