A couple of points to consider:

• Market: If you are looking at highly decentralised economies (like Germany for example; same goes for the US), travel is more likely. In more centralised settings (like France, UK), most of the client HQs are concentrated in the capital city - so most likely within commuting distance from the consulting office

• Sector: Some industries are intrinsically more local and others more international. Banking/Pharma/Telco tends to be quite local in most markets, whereas extracting industries (Mining, O&G,...) are extremely global and spread out across continents

• Consulting firm setup: Some firms (and practices/Service lines within firms) manage staffing on a more local basis, with regional/global overlays. Others explicitly staff regionally or globally from a common pool. Clearly the former leads to less travel on average. Given my personal experience at the two leading firms, BCG has more of a regional hub model when it comes to staffing, while McKinsey operates more as "one firm". Thereby, international projects are (ceteris paribus) more likely at McKinsey

• Network & Seniority: As you become more senior, you get some increase in influence over staffing in general (if partners love working with you, you have options to choose from), and also specifically (becomes relevant once you manage projects and decide who needs to be where for a particular meeting or piece of work)

My personal experience over the last 7 years at McKinsey and BCG was quite travel-heavy, but that was largely driven by my desire to work in different emerging markets, which spread across different continents. I have seen many colleagues who have opted for an approach to minimise travel, and they all pulled a combination of the above levers.

Hope this helps!

Cheers, Sidi